DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s response filed 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed 11/7/2022. Claims 6 and 14 were cancelled in an amendment filed 1/31/2025. Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, 20, and 23 are currently amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-23 are currently pending.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-23 have been examined.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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 1-5, 7-13, 15-20, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade (US 20230198776 A1) in view of GAO “ASSESSING DATA RELIABILITY”.
Regarding claim 1
Andrade teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
receiving, from a digital contract transaction verification program stored in a digital contract on a distributed ledger platform, first transaction verification information verifying terms of the digital contract are satisfied, wherein the digital contract is associated with a first transaction, {[0028] “In the above example, the smart contract [digital contract] can result in the emitting of event data [transaction verification information] that includes a name (e.g., specified by the developer in the smart contract) and information regarding a payment on the smart contract (e.g., detected that resulted in execution of the smart contract) that includes information regarding the transferor, transferee, amount, and geographic location.”; [0029] “The system 100 can include listening systems 108. A listening system 108 can subscribe to a blockchain node 104. As the result of a subscription, a listening system 108 can receive collected event data from a blockchain node 104 that is collected from all emit functions detected by the blockchain node 104.”; See also Fig. 3.}
PNG
media_image1.png
569
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the digital contract specifies the terms of the first transaction, {[0024] “The criteria [terms] for the smart contract can be storage of a deed of transfer or other document on the blockchain.”}
wherein the digital contract stores the digital contract transaction verification program, and {[0003] “These needs resulted in the development and creation of smart contracts, which are self-executable data objects stored in a blockchain that can automate processes as desired for participants.”}
wherein executing the digital contract comprises:
Executing the digital contract is not one of the claimed operations. The details of the execution of the digital contract are therefore not given patentable weight. However, they are taught by Andrade.
verifying the terms of the digital contract are satisfied; {[0003] “In an example, a smart contract can be created and added to the blockchain that monitors for the addition of an expected new object on the chain, such as a hash of a deed of transfer. When the addition is detected and verified by the contract, the contract can self-execute and submit a new transaction to the blockchain for transfer of digital currency from one party to another as predetermined in the smart contract.”}
responsive to verifying the terms of the digital contract are satisfied:
storing the executed digital contract to the distributed ledger platform; {[0020] “In some embodiments, the blockchain [distributed ledger platform] can be used to store information regarding blockchain transactions conducted between two different blockchain wallets.”}
triggering execution of the digital contract transaction verification program stored in the digital contract; and
executing the digital contract transaction verification program stored in the digital contract to generate first transaction verification information;
{[0028] “In the above example, the smart contract can result in the emitting [generate and transmitting] of event data [transaction verification information] that includes a name (e.g., specified by the developer in the smart contract) and information regarding a payment on the smart contract (e.g., detected that resulted in execution of the smart contract) that includes information regarding the transferor, transferee, amount, and geographic location.”; [0029] “The system 100 can include listening systems 108. A listening system 108 can subscribe to a blockchain node 104. As the result of a subscription, a listening system 108 can receive collected event data from a blockchain node 104 that is collected from all emit functions detected by the blockchain node 104.”; See also Fig. 3.}
Andrade does not teach, however GAO teaches:
based on receiving the first transaction verification information from the digital contract transaction verification program, assigning a first transaction reliability value to first transaction data associated with the first transaction;
accessing second transaction data associated with a second transaction; and
based on failing to receive any transaction verification information corresponding to the second transaction from any digital contract transaction verification program, assigning a second transaction reliability value to second transaction data associated with the second transaction
wherein the first transaction reliability value is greater than the second transaction reliability value. {page 55 “To describe how duty-free cigarettes are sold and exported and how duty-free stores report data, we analyzed Automated Export System (AES) data [transaction data] from Census for 2010 through 2015 on recorded transactions at the 88 duty-free stores CBP identified as being adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border”; Section 5: Making the Data Reliability Determination, Outcomes to Consider in the Assessment “Data reliability assessments result in [assigning] one of three possible determinations of reliability for the audit’s purpose: sufficiently reliable, not sufficiently reliable, or undetermined reliability. [transaction reliability value]”; Section 5: Making the Data Reliability Determination, Factors to Consider in the Determination “To determine whether the data are sufficiently reliable […] consider all factors […] these factors include: […] the presence of corroborating evidence [transaction verification information]”; Pages 28-29 “Data may be of undetermined reliability if specific factors are present, including: limited or no access to the data source, […] or when insufficient information exists in the form of source documents or documentation about the data.”}
GAO teaches making reliability determinations on a plurality of transactions (reads on first and second transaction data), where a greater reliability value is assigned when there is corroborating evidence (reads on verification information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Andrade to include the reliability determinations of GAO. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to determine whether or not the data is usable (GAO page 5 “The primary focus of a data reliability assessment is to determine whether the data can be used for the audit’s intended purposes.”). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Andrade evidently discloses collecting transaction data emitted by a smart contract. GAO is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of assessing the reliability of data. Since the elements disclosed by Andrade, as well as GAO would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Andrade in view of GAO.
Regarding claim 2
Andrade teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the digital contract is executed using a cryptocurrency. {[0002] “Blockchain was initially created as a storage mechanism for use in conducting payment transactions with a cryptographic currency.”}
As of the 8/14/2025 amendment, executing the digital contract is no longer one of the claimed operations. The details of the execution of the digital contract are therefore not given patentable weight. However, they are taught by Andrade.
Regarding claim 3
The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein executing the digital contract transaction verification program stored in the digital contract includes transmitting the first transaction verification information to an address specified in a uniform resource locator (URL) specified in the digital contract.
As of the 8/14/2025 amendment, executing the digital contract is no longer one of the claimed operations. The above limitation is therefore not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4
The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein executing the digital contract transaction verification program stored in the digital contract includes executing a command of an application programming interface (API) to receive the first transaction verification information as an application input parameter.
As of the 8/14/2025 amendment, executing the digital contract is no longer one of the claimed operations. The above limitation is therefore not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 5
Andrade teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein the digital contract specifies a first entity associated with payment of a specified price and a second entity associated with providing a specified product or service. {[0024] “In an example, users of two different participant devices 106 can make a deal for the sale of a vehicle that is to be paid for using digital currency. The buyer [first entity] can agree to pay a specific amount of digital currency, such as 500 units, that is to be paid upon delivery of the vehicle by the seller [second entity].”}
Executing the digital contract is not one of the claimed operations. The details of the execution of the digital contract are therefore not given patentable weight. However, they are taught by Andrade.
Regarding claim 7
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the transaction is a sale of goods or services in exchange for a specified amount of a digital currency.
The above limitation is intended use not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the transaction is a fee charged in a digital currency based on detecting a user interaction with an advertisement.
The above limitation is intended use not given patentable weight.
Regarding claims 9-13, 15, 16, 17-20
Claims 9-13, 15, 16 are substantially similar to claims 1-5, 7, 8, respectively, and are treated the same with respect to prior art rejections. Claims 17-20 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 respectively, and are treated the same with respect to prior art rejections.
Regarding claim 22
Andrade teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
initiating a third transaction to transmit the first transaction data based on a first set of transaction terms, wherein the first set of transaction terms includes associating the first transaction data with a first transaction value based on the first transaction reliability value, and {[0028] “In the above example, the smart contract can result in the emitting [transmit] of event data that includes a name (e.g., specified by the developer in the smart contract) and information regarding a payment on the smart contract (e.g., detected that resulted in execution of the smart contract) that includes information regarding the transferor, transferee, amount, and geographic location.”}
initiating a fourth transaction to transmit the second transaction data based on a second set of transaction terms, wherein the second set of transaction terms includes associating the second transaction data with a second transaction value based on the second transaction reliability value. {[0028] “In the above example, the smart contract can result in the emitting [transmit] of event data that includes a name (e.g., specified by the developer in the smart contract) and information regarding a payment on the smart contract (e.g., detected that resulted in execution of the smart contract) that includes information regarding the transferor, transferee, amount, and geographic location.”}
The word “transaction” is interpreted in its broadest sense as encompassing any interaction.
Regarding claim 23
Andrade teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein the first transaction verification information is received by a transaction management platform, and wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving, by the transaction management platform, a first record of the first transaction from a first entity, {[0017] “In some embodiments, a listening system [transaction management platform] 108 can be a blockchain node 104.”}
The listening system being a blockchain node implies receiving a transaction record since transactions are ordinarily propagated to all nodes in a blockchain system.
[…] (a) receiving the first record from the first entity and (b) receiving the first transaction verification information from the digital contract transaction verification program, separate from the first entity. {[0017] “In some embodiments, a listening system [transaction management platform] 108 can be a blockchain node 104.”; [0029] “The system 100 can include listening systems 108. A listening system 108 can subscribe to a blockchain node 104. As the result of a subscription, a listening system 108 can receive collected event data [transaction verification information] from a blockchain node 104 that is collected from all emit functions detected by the blockchain node 104.”}
“Based on” is interpreted as meaning the receiving steps happen before assigning the value.
Andrade does not teach, however GAO teaches:
wherein the transaction management platform assigns the first transaction reliability value to the first transaction based on (a) receiving the first record from the first entity and (b) receiving the first transaction verification information from the digital contract transaction verification program, separate from the first entity. {GAO Section 5: Making the Data Reliability Determination, Outcomes to Consider in the Assessment “Data reliability assessments result in [assigning] one of three possible determinations of reliability for the audit’s purpose: sufficiently reliable, not sufficiently reliable, or undetermined reliability. [transaction reliability value]”}
See claim 1 regarding motivation for combining the event data of Andrade with the assessment of GAO.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrade in view of GAO as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ly (US 20190392080 A1).
Regarding claim 21
Andrade in view of GAO does not teach, however Ly teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving a request to access a set of transaction data corresponding to a particular set of transaction reliability values; {[0010] “In an embodiment, the method further includes receiving a user selection of the filter of the first field, launching a database query [request] based on the filter [set] of the first field [transaction reliability value], and displaying the results of the query.”}
based on determining the first transaction reliability value is included among the particular set of transaction reliability values, transmitting the first transaction data in response to the request; and {[0010] “In an embodiment, the method further includes receiving a user selection of the filter of the first field, launching a database query based on the filter of the first field, and displaying [transmitting] the results of the query.”}
based on determining the second transaction reliability value is not included among the particular set of transaction reliability values, refraining from transmitting the second transaction data in response to the request. {[0010] “In an embodiment, the method further includes receiving a user selection of the filter of the first field, launching a database query based on the filter of the first field, and displaying the results of the query.”}
The word “filter” in Ly is interpreted as meaning the non-matching field values are not returned from the database.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Andrade in view of GAO to include the filtering query of Ly. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to allow a user to only view specific data {Ly [0002] “For example, in a spreadsheet containing addresses, a user might only want to see addresses in New York state, and would filter out the non-New York addresses by clicking on the column header for ‘State’ and only checking the box next to ‘New York’ in the list of possible filters.”}. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Andrade in view of GAO teaches collecting transaction data and assigning data reliability determinations. Ly is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a filtering query in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both transaction data collecting of Andrade, as well as the filtering query of Ly are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Andrade in view of GAO, as well as Ly would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Andrade in view of GAO and further in view of Ly.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112
The 112(a) rejection is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s argument. The 112(b) rejections of claims 3, 4, 11-12, 19-20 are withdrawn due to the amendments. The 112(b) rejection of claim 22 is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s argument.
35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected as being unpatentable over Andrade in view of GAO. Andrade teaches a smart contract which collects event data from a blockchain network and sending it to subscribing listening systems. GAO teaches general techniques for assessing transaction data from various sources and assessing its relative reliability.
Applicant argues the cited references do not teach the claim 1 features describing assigning different values to different sets of transaction data based on whether the transaction data is associated with a set of transaction verification data from a digital contract transaction verification program. Applicant states “determining if data are sufficiently reliable based on the presence of corroborating evidence is not assigning different values to different sets of transaction data based on whether the transaction data is associated with a set of transaction verification data from a digital contract transaction verification program or not.”
The term “transaction verification data” is interpreted as a label for data which is produced by the claimed digital contract and included with the transaction data. The steps of “assigning a first transaction reliability value to first transaction data…”, and “assigning a second transaction reliability value to second transaction data… wherein the first transaction reliability value is greater” are interpreted as requiring a recognition that transaction data from the claimed digital contract has a different level of reliability than transaction data from some other digital contract, and that the claimed digital contract is of greater reliability than another digital contract.
Since GAO teaches making differing reliability determinations about transaction data based on a variety of factors such as the source of the data and the presence/absence of corroborating evidence, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a listening system of Andrade might make differing relative reliability determinations regarding transaction data received, and that it might assess the reliability of transaction data from one smart contract as higher than transaction data from another smart contract, depending on what data is included.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30 pm - 8:30 pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. 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.
/S.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698