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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 7/22/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-16, and 29-30 are pending in this application. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on behalf of this case on 7/26/2026, has been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, and 15 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3-4 and 17-28 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On remarks pages 8-9 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues Applicant’s amendments and cites to Figure 3 of the specification for support of this argument. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and amendments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically as per Applicant’s amendments filed 7/22/2026 the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity steps specifically different ledgers are assigned different identifiers, transactions in the ledger carry the identification of the ledger it was generated in, using the identification to determine which ledger the transaction belongs in and storing information in different ledgers in different data stores that are isolated from each other. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, that the network and ledger is “blockchain” and the record is “blockchain”, merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here as broadly recited in the claims Applicant does not recite an improvement in blockchain, blocks, device nodes, or cryptographic data hash rather the claims merely recite using the computer or computer elements to implement the above abstract idea.
Further the additional element that the data store is a “database” merely results in apply it. The claim additional elements invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim does not recite an improvement in databases, rather the claim is merely using databases to implement the abstract idea.
Further this additional element is considered no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
It is further noted while considered, limitations found in Applicant’s specification at the cited paragraphs 00101-00102 and Figure 3 are not read into the claims, as the USPTO standard for examination is broadest reasoanbel interpretation (unless the claims are interpreted under 112 sixth/f which is not the case herein) and the USPTO standard for subject matter eligibility is based on claims ( not the specification). See cited sections cited herein for Applicant’s convenience:
MPEP 2111 Claim interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-10.2019](cited herein):
CLAIMS MUST BE GIVEN THEIR BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IN LIGHT OF THE SPECIFICATION
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record. In contrast, an examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. Thus, the Office does not interpret claims when examining patent applications in the same manner as the courts. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (Claim 9 was directed to a process of analyzing data generated by mass spectrographic analysis of a gas. The process comprised selecting the data to be analyzed by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation. The examiner made rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 102. In the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, the examiner explained that the claim was anticipated by a mental process augmented by pencil and paper markings. The court agreed that the claim was not limited to using a machine to carry out the process since the claim did not explicitly set forth the machine. The court explained that "reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim." The court found that applicant was advocating the latter, i.e., the impermissible importation of subject matter from the specification into the claim.). See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The court held that the USPTO is not required, in the course of prosecution, to interpret claims in applications in the same manner as a court would interpret claims in an infringement suit. Rather, the "PTO applies to verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification.").
The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (The Board’s construction of the claim limitation "restore hair growth" as requiring the hair to be returned to its original state was held to be an incorrect interpretation of the limitation. The court held that, consistent with applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of three patents from analogous arts using the same phrase to require only some increase in hair growth, one of ordinary skill would construe "restore hair growth" to mean that the claimed method increases the amount of hair grown on the scalp, but does not necessarily produce a full head of hair.). Thus the focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 84 USPQ2d 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In Buszard, the claim was directed to a flame retardant composition comprising a flexible polyurethane foam reaction mixture. 504 F.3d at 1365, 84 USPQ2d at 1750. The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s interpretation that equated a "flexible" foam with a crushed "rigid" foam was not reasonable. Id. at 1367, 84 USPQ2d at 1751. Persuasive argument was presented that persons experienced in the field of polyurethane foams know that a flexible mixture is different than a rigid foam mixture. Id. at 1366, 84 USPQ2d at 1751.
….
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV, below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).
In Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236-37, 2023 USPQ2d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found that construing "connection rejection message" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and should not be construed in such a way as to improperly limit the claims to specific disclosed embodiments. The intrinsic evidence provided no basis to limit the claims to the preferred embodiments and a person of ordinary skill in the art would broadly interpret the claim language consistent with the broad statements in the specification.
And MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019](cited herein):
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On remarks page 10, Applicant argues 2A Prong 2 and cites paragraph 0080 for support of this argument. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification does recite blockchain the function described here is a broad results based recitation of comparing two ledgers to cross verify information in two different ledgers which ensure security and consistency of the stored data. This is part of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity.
`The only additional element here in the cited section of paragraph 0080 is that the ledger is blockchain which merely recites apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as detailed in the 101 rejection below (see for example claim 1). [AltContent: rect]
On Remarks page 10, Applicant argues claim 3 is not an abstract idea as the claim cannot be performed in the human brain. It is noted this limitation maps to claim 1 not claim 3 as claim 3 was previously cancelled.
In response to Applicant’s arguments here, the Examiner did not state in the 101 rejection, this entire argued limitation was part of the abstract idea. As detailed in the 101 rejection below, elements of blockchain and blocks were identified as additional elements. Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The function here is generating a first record and a second record based on the target evaluation data and updating records maintained on networks, which is a certain method of organizing human activity and therefore is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, that the network and ledger is “blockchain”, the record is “blockchain”, and the records within the ledger are “blocks” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as detailed in the previous 101 rejection and the updated 101 rejection below to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
On Remarks pages 11-14, Applicant argues the prior art. In view of Applicant’s amendments the Examiner has cited the new primary reference of Lee (KR 2021/0150810). Therefore while Applicant’s arguments have been considered they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of Applicant’s amendments presented 7/22/2026. It is noted Lee teaches in Figures 1 and 5 the argued blockchain flowcharts of the specification as filed in Figures 2-3.
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 1-2, 5-16 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2 and 5-14 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claims 15-16 recite a machine as the claims recite a data storage apparatus including processors. Claim 29 recites a machine as the claims recite an electronic device with a processor. Claim 30 recites an article of manufacture as the claims recite a non-transitory computer
readable medium being executed by a processor.
The claim(s) 1-2, 5-16 and 29-30 recite obtaining target data evaluation (like reviews), storing the data in multiple ledgers, and verifying the information stored in separate ledgers based on an identifier or feature, updating information stored in a first record in a first ledger and or second ledger based on historical data or identifiers.
The claims recite subject matter that is a fundamental economic practice, specifically obtaining target data evaluation (like reviews), storing the data in multiple ledgers, and verifying the information stored in separate ledgers based on an identifier or feature, updating information stored in a first record in a first ledger and or second ledger based on historical data or identifiers. Fundamental economic practices are certain methods of organizing human activity.
Certain methods of organizing human activity are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical
application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words "apply it" ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or
mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and or (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of obtaining target data evaluation (like reviews), storing the data in multiple ledgers, and verifying the information stored in separate ledgers based on an identifier or feature, updating information stored in a first record in a first ledger and or second ledger based on historical data or identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea.
Here a node is merely a connection between networks, where a network in its plain meaning is a very a broad term of a group or system of interconnected people or things, therefore this is part of the abstract idea as a user could be connected to two groups of people, groups of records or logs, etc. and store data with those different systems from which they are connected. Further it is a certain method of organizing human activity step to perform cross verification as someone could ask two different systems of people or records for information to make a determination based on identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea. It is further noted that the amended “wherein generating the first evaluation block and the second evaluation block comprises” is recited in the alternative therefore only one of the alternatives is required. Therefore if an argument is made that one of these is beyond the abstract idea, a practical application and or significantly more such an argument would be non-persuasive as it may not be required to be actually performed, as the claim is listed in the alternative. The above is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, that the network and ledger is “blockchain”, the record is “blockchain”, software running on a computer to perform functions (one of the nodes is a device that comprises one or more processors and a memory), the records within the ledger are “blocks”, and the identifier is “a cryptographic dash hash” merely results in apply it. It is noted that the claims do not actually require performing cryptographic data hash, with the language “based on” this could be merely comparing results of the determination, e.g. comparing two numbers, results, or identifiers. This is a result oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to the words apply it. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here as broadly recited in the claims Applicant does not recite an improvement in blockchain, blocks, device nodes, or cryptographic data hash rather the claims merely recite using the computer or computer elements to implement the above abstract idea.
Further these above additional elements are considered no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per Applicant’s amendments filed 7/22/2026 the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity steps specifically different ledgers are assigned different identifiers, transactions in the ledger carry the identification of the ledger it was generated in, using the identification to determine which ledger the transaction belongs in and storing information in different ledgers in different data stores that are isolated from each other. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, that the network and ledger is “blockchain” and the record is “blockchain”, merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed previously above.
Further the additional element that the data store is a “database” merely results in apply it. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim does not recite an improvement in databases, rather the claim is merely using databases to implement the abstract idea.
Further this additional element is considered no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity steps, specifically, collecting target evaluation data like reviews and sorting the information in various records or ledgers. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this is performed on the "blockchain" merely result in "apply it" or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity steps, specifically setting the target user as the record identification for the record ledger, where records can be set in different ledgers. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the records are "blocks" and the ledger is a "blockchain" merely result in "apply it" or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activities steps including encrypting and storing data in a records as broadly recited in the claims. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that the encrypted text is "ciphertext" merely results in "apply it." Specifically the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the claims recites only a result oriented solution as the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description for the mechanism for accomplishing the result other than the encrypted text being "ciphertext" which does not result in a practical application or significantly more. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further these additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
Further this can be considered mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
As per claim 7, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity steps of storing purchase data in relation to the evaluations. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in the claims from which the claim depends.
As per claim 8, the claims recite certain methods of human activities specifically sign a document, another user could verify that information with information they have and
store the information in response to verifying the information or determining its valid. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that the signature information is "public" and "private" keys merely results in "apply it." Specifically the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the claims recites only a result oriented solution as the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description for the mechanism for accomplishing the result other than the signature information is "public" and "private" keys which does not result in a practical application or significantly more. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a juridical exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further these additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
Further this can be considered mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
As per claim 9, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities specifically determine a diversity degree between reviews and based on meeting the diversity degree threshold store the information. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 10, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically register with an entity and the registration process could be implemented by an algorithm, for example check to see if there is another user with the same name or credentials etc. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the entity is a server and the algorithm is a zero-knowledge proof algorithm results in merely apply it.
Specifically the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the claims recites only a result oriented solution as the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description for the mechanism for accomplishing the result other than the entity is a server and the algorithm is a zero-knowledge proof algorithm which does not result in a practical application or significantly more. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a juridical exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further the additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 11, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of wherein the constraints of the algorithm are generated according to the identity of the target or information used by the user to provide the reviews. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the algorithm is a zero-knowledge proof algorithm, the information is provided by the user from a "device information of a terminal device" and the constraints are a "proof circuit" results in merely apply it.
Specifically the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather the claims recites only a result oriented solution as the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description for the mechanism for accomplishing the result other than the algorithm is a zero-knowledge proof algorithm, the information is provided by the user from "device information of a terminal device" and the constraints are a "proof circuit" which does not result in a practical application or significantly more. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further the additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 12, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically the claims recite in response to storing the review triggering a benefit to the user based on the review. This is part of abstract idea.
The additional elements that the information is stored in a ledger that is "blockchain" merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 13, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically the claims recite in response to a cancellation request freezing permission from others for viewing the review data. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the information is stored in a ledger that is "blockchain" merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 14, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically the claims recite receiving a request for information including time, user identification and object identifiers of the reviews, obtaining information from storage according to the request and upon determining the information is identical returning the information to the requesting party. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the information is in a ledger that is "blockchain" merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in claim 1 .
As per claim 15, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity steps of obtaining target data evaluation (like reviews), storing the data in multiple ledgers, verifying the information stored in separate ledgers based on an identifier or feature, updating information stored in a first record in a first ledger or second ledger based on historical data, target evaluations, and or identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea.
Here a node is merely a connection between networks, where a network in its plain meaning is a very a broad term of a group or system of interconnected people or things, therefore this is part of the abstract idea as a user could be connected to two groups of people, groups of records or logs, etc. and store data with those different systems from which they are connected. Further it is a certain method of organizing human activity step to perform cross verification as someone could ask two different systems of people or records for information to make a determination based on identifiers. This is part of the abstract idea. It is further noted that the amended “wherein generating the first evaluation block and the second evaluation block comprises” is recited in the alternative therefore only one of the alternatives is required. Therefore if an argument is made that one of these is beyond the abstract idea, a practical application and or significantly more such an argument would be non-persuasive as it may not be required to be actually performed, as the claim is listed in the alternative.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, that the network and ledger is “blockchain”, the record is “blockchain”, one of the nodes is a “device comprises one or more processors and a memory”, and being performed by a “data storage apparatus” which “comprises one or more processors configured to”, the records within the ledger are “blocks”, and the identifier is “a cryptographic dash hash” merely results in apply it. It is noted that the claims do not actually require performing cryptographic data hash, with the language “based on” this could be merely comparing results of the determination, e.g. comparing two numbers, results, or identifiers. This is a result oriented solution and lacks details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to the words apply it.
The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here as broadly recited in the claims Applicant does not recite an improvement in blockchain, blocks, device nodes, or cryptographic data hash rather the claims merely recite using the computer or computer elements to implement the abstract idea.
Further these additional elements are considered no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per Applicant’s amendments filed 7/22/2026 the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity steps specifically different ledgers are assigned different identifiers, transactions in the ledger carry the identification of the ledger it was generated in, using the identification to determine which ledger the transaction belongs in and storing information in different ledgers in different data stores that are isolated from each other. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea, that the network and ledger is “blockchain” and the record is “blockchain”, merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed previously above.
Further the additional element that the data store is a “database” merely results in apply it. The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim does not recite an improvement in databases, rather the claim is merely using databases to implement the abstract idea.
Further this additional element is considered no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 16, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of collecting target evaluation data like reviews and sorting the information in various records or ledgers. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this is performed on the "blockchain" merely result in
"apply it" or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 16.
As per claim 29, the claims recite performing a method of claim 1 which as discussed above in claim 1 are include certain methods of organizing human activities. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this method that includes certain methods of organizing human activity are instead recited as being performed by "an electronic device comprising: a processor; a memory used to sore processor executable instructions; wherein the processor is configured to implement the method according to" merely recite "apply it." The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further these above additional elements merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 30, the claims recite performing a method of claim 1 which as discussed above in claim 1 which include certain methods of organizing human activities steps. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these certain method of organizing human activities are instead recited as being performed by a "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein, when the program is executed by a processor, the computer program implements steps of the method according to" merely recite "apply it."
The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further additional elements that certain methods of organizing human activities are instead recited as being performed on by ""a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein, when the program is executed by a processor, the computer program implements steps of the method according to" merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words "apply it" ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as detailed above under the practical application step.
Further, the claims merely recite (a) Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 6, using "ciphertext"
- Gligor et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2001/0033656) paragraph 0006 "Also well known in the art are other
encryption schemes, such as he plaintext-ciphertext Block Chaining (PCBC)
(viz., C. H. Meyer and S. M. Matyas: "Cryptography; A New Dimension in
Computer Data Security", John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982 (second
printing)), stateful or counter-based (XORC), and stateless (XOR$), XOR
schemes (viz., M. Bellare, A. Desai, E. Jokipii, and P. Rogaway: "A Concrete
Security Treatment of Symmetric Encryption," Proceedings of the 38th
Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE, 1997, pp. 394-403),
and the "infinite garble extension" (viz., C. M. Campbell: "Design and Specification of Cryptographic Capabilities," in Computer Security and the
Data Encryption Standard, (D. K. Brandstad (ed.)) National Bureau of
Standards Special Publications 500-27, U.S. Department of Commerce,
February 1978, pp. 54-66). The encryption and decryption equations of these
schemes illustrate in a brief manner how these schemes use F.sub.K, a block
cipher F with key K, and its inverse F.sup.-1.sub.K, to process the plaintext
and ciphertext blocks of a message or data."
- Henry et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2004/0208318) paragraph 0009 "The field of information security that
provides us with techniques and means to encode data so that it can only be
decoded by specified individuals is known as cryptography. When particularly
applied to protecting information that is stored on or transmitted between
computers, cryptography most often is utilized to transform sensitive
information (known in the art as "plaintext" or "cleartext") into an intelligible
form (known in the art as "ciphertext"). The transformation process of
converting plaintext into ciphertext is called "encryption," "enciphering," or
"ciphering" and the reverse transformation process of converting ciphertext
back into plaintext is referred to as "decryption," "deciphering," or "inverse
ciphering."
- Batthish et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2005/0160292) paragraph 0057 "As indicated above, the content itself can be
encrypted using the previously derived encryption key. Various algorithms
can be used to encrypt the content with the encryption key, including the Data Encryption Standard (DES), Triple-DES, RC2 and AES algorithms. As will be
known to those of skill in the art, content is generally encrypted by mapping a
string of octets, comprising the content, to another string of octets, often
referred to as "the ciphertext", under the control of the content encryption key.
Depending on the size of the content, padding may be added to increase the
content to an appropriate size multiple to facilitate encryption.
As per claim 8, verifying or validating information through public and
private keys
- Geiger et al. (United States Patent US 6,377,810) column 2 liens 65-
column 3 lines 15) teaches "This produces as output a finite length bit
string(s) which is a digital signature. The second part of such an algorithm is
the verification part. The cryptographic algorithm has the property that an
entity with the public key mathematically related, in a manner well known in
the art of public key cryptography, to the signer's private key may verify that
the holder of such a private key actually digitally signed the message. This
verification is commonly done by once again hashing the message and then
running this output through the verification part. Input to the verification part
includes the message hash, (supposed) signer's public key, and the digital
signature. The verification part outputs either valid or invalid. An output of
valid indicates that the holder of the private key mathematically related to the
public key actually produced this digital signature with the corresponding
private key as input to the signing part of the cryptographic algorithm. In
practice the public key is bound to an entity by a certification process, which is well known in the art of public key infrastructures. This certification process
binds an identifier or name for an entity to a public key in the form of a
certificate, as is well known in the art."
- Lord et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2003/0066091) paragraph 0041 "as is well known in the art, it is possible to
user a private key to generate a signature and a public key to verify a
signature. This is a crucial part of digitally signing any data. "
- Mimatsu (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2009/0177721) paragraph 0043 "Also, private key 1305 may be used to
create a digital signature to be included with data exported, and public key
1306 may be used to verify a digital signature on data imported in a manner
known in the art"
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s)1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-16, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20210150810) further in view of O’Brien et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968).
As per claim 1, Lee teaches A data storage method, applied to performed by a node device deployed with a blockchain node, wherein the node device comprises one or more processors and a memory, (see paragraphs 0018-0021, Examiner’s note: being performed by software running on a computer).
wherein a user blockchain network comprises the blockchain node and one or more user nodes, and an object blockchain network comprises the blockchain node and one or more object nodes, and each of the user nodes or the object nodes is deployed on a node device, the blockchain node belongs to a user blockchain network and an object blockchain network, the user blockchain network is used to stores evaluation data generated by evaluation behavior of a target user on at least one object, and the object blockchain network is used to stores evaluation data generated by at least one user performing evaluation behavior on the target object, (see paragraphs 0011, 0044-0046, Figures 1 and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches multiple blockchains in an example one for car life cycle and one for a driver life cycle and applying them to the occurrence of a car accident to determine information. Figures 1 and 5 show two different blockchains connected together by a connected node, this is the same blockchain function as shown in Applicant’s drawings see Figures 3-4).
Wherein the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network are respectively assigned different network identifications; a blockchain transaction and corresponding blockchain data generated in either the user blockchain or the object blockchain network each carry the network identification of the blockchain network in which the blockchain is generated; the blockchain node identifies, based on the network identification, whether a processed blockchain transaction belongs to the user blockchain network or the object blockchain network, and stores blockchain data according to the blockchain transaction in a corresponding data store; and a data store corresponding to the user blockchain network and a data store corresponding to the object blockchain network are isolated from each other; the method comprises: (see paragraphs 0026, 0039, 0041, 0045-0046, and Figure 2 Examiner’s note: here teaches each blockchain includes blocks that are based on a census algorithm of that blockchain, and then the circle chain (connecting the two blockchains) may include hash information from each of the blockchains as shown in Figure 2).
obtaining target evaluation data on a target object, the target evaluation data being generated by the target user performing target evaluation behavior on the target object; storing the target evaluation data separately to the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network through the blockchain node, and performing cross verification between the target evaluation data stored separately in the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network based on cryptographic data Hash; wherein storing the target evaluation data comprises: generating a first evaluation block and a second evaluation block respectively based on the target evaluation data; updating the first evaluation block to a first blockchain ledger maintained by the user blockchain network, and updating the second evaluation block to a second blockchain ledger maintained by the object blockchain network; (see paragraphs 0026, 0042-0046, Figures 1, 2, and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches here information may be stored in different blockchains (see Figures 1, 2, and 5) and can be cross referenced in the circle chain by hash (see paragraphs 0042-0046), and teaches when a transaction occurs generating a unique block by a different consensus algorithm for the chain (See paragraph 0026)).
wherein generating the first evaluation block and the second evaluation block comprises: generating the first evaluation block based on first historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data, and generating the second evaluation block based on second historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data; or, generating the first evaluation block based on cryptographic data Hash of the first historical evaluation data and dash hash of the target evaluation data, and generating the second evaluation block based on cryptographic data Hash of the second historical evaluation data and data hash of the target evaluation data; wherein the first historical evaluation data was generated by the target user performing a first historical evaluation behavior on at least one object before the target evaluation behavior, and the second historical evaluation data was generated by at least one user performing a second historical evaluation behavior on the target object before the target evaluation behavior (see paragraphs 0026, 0042-0046, Figures 1, 2, and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches here different information may be stored in different blockchains (see Figures 1, 2, and 5) and can be cross referenced in the circle chain by hash (see paragraphs 0042-0046), and teaches when a transaction occurs generating a unique block by a different consensus algorithm for the chain (See paragraph 0026). One example of the information stored in these different blockchains is car life cycle (blockchain a like changes in vehicle status and changes in vehicle owner) and driver life cycle (blockchain b like changes in drive state and changes in driver location) and the circle blockchain is (occurrence of a car accident). It is noted this is listed in the alternative therefore only one of the above is required by the claim).
Lee does not expressly teach the blockchains store information in databases.
However, O’Brien et al. which is in the art of managing information in blockchain (see abstract and paragraphs 0017 and 0020) teach the blockchains store information in databases (see paragraph 0037, Examiner’s note: teaches storing blockchain information in the same or different distributed databases).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with the aforementioned teachings from O’Brien et al. with the motivation of providing a common computer storage element to store information in blockchain (see O’Brien et al. paragraph 0037), when Lee teaches storing information in different blockchains is known (see Lee paragraphs 0026, 0042-0046, Figures 1, 2, and 5).
As per claim 2, Lee teaches
wherein the blockchain node comprises a first blockchain node in the user blockchain network and a second blockchain node in the object blockchain network, wherein storing the target evaluation data comprises: storing the target evaluation data to the user blockchain network through the first blockchain node, and storing the target evaluation data to the object blockchain network through the second blockchain node. (see paragraphs 0011, 0044-0046, Figures 1 and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches multiple blockchains in an example one for car life cycle and one for driver life cycle and applying them to the occurrence of a car accident to determine information. Figures 1 and 5 show two different blockchains connected together by a connected node, this is the same function as shown in Applicant’s drawings see Figures 3-4).
As per claim 5, Lee teaches
further comprising: setting identity information of the target user as a ledger identification of the first blockchain ledger, wherein the first evaluation block is a first block of the first blockchain ledger; or, setting identification information of the target object as a ledger identification of the second blockchain ledger, wherein the second evaluation block is a first block of the second blockchain ledger (see paragraphs 0003, 0026, and 0042-0046, Examiner’s note: as the claims are listed in the alternative only one is required by the claims. Here one example of the information stored in these different blockchains is car life cycle (blockchain a like changes in vehicle status and changes in vehicle owner) and driver life cycle (blockchain b like changes in drive state and changes in driver location) and the circle blockchain is (occurrence of a car accident), see paragraphs 0042-0046. Lee teaches these blockchains are formed by blocks referencing a previous block with a hash (see paragraph 0003) and when a transaction occurs a block is generated by a consensus algorithm (see paragraph 0026), so here a first block would be a driver or car life cycle and additional blocks would be transactions (like changes) to the driver or car life cycle blockchain stored information).
As per claim 6, Lee teaches
wherein storing the target evaluation data comprises: encrypting the target evaluation data and storing the encrypted ciphertext evaluation data (see paragraphs 0005, 0039, and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: teaches information is encrypted and using hash values for the blockchains).
As per claim 7, Lee teaches
wherein storing the target evaluation data-comprises: obtaining target purchase data corresponding to the target evaluation behavior, the target purchase data being generated by the target user performing target purchase behavior on the target object; the target purchase data with the target evaluation data (see paragraph 0044, Examiner’s note: blockchain A could be things like changes in vehicle ownership).
As per claim 8, Lee does not expressly teach using private and public keys on blockchain or more specifically as recited in the claims of wherein a signature generated from a private key of the target user is added by a client of the target user to the target evaluation data comprise a signature generated by a client of the target user from a private key of the target user, and storing the target evaluation data comprises: verifying the signature with a public key of the client; in response to the signature is verified, storing the target evaluation data.
However, O’Brien et al. which is in the art of managing information in blockchain (see abstract and paragraphs 0017 and 0020) teach using private and public keys on blockchain or more specifically as recited in the claims of wherein a signature generated from a private key of the target user is added by a client of the target user to the target evaluation data comprise a signature generated by a client of the target user from a private key of the target user, and storing the target evaluation data comprises: verifying the signature with a public key of the client; in response to the signature is verified, storing the target evaluation data (see paragraphs 0050, 0052, and 0055-0056, Examiner’s note: using public and private keys to provide reviews in blockchain).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee in view of O’Brien et al. with the aforementioned teachings from O’Brien et al. with the motivation of providing a known way to verify or authorize actions in blockchain to create blocks (see O’Brien et al. paragraphs 0055-0056), when allowing for the creation of blocks in blockchain is known (see Lee paragraphs 0026 and 0031).
As per claim 10, Lee teaches
wherein the target user is pre-registered to a server, (see paragraph 0002, Examiner’s note: teaches blockchain using a server and teaches tracking user driver life changes like changes in driver state and driver location over time, which would read on the broadly recited preregistered user).
and a corresponding registration process is implemented based on a zero-knowledge proof algorithm (see paragraph 0011 and 0083-0086, Examiner’s note: zero knowledge proof method is provided to ensure that the specific transaction and the details of the specific blockchain network are kept confidential and can be verified)
As per claim 11, Lee teaches
wherein a proof circuit of the zero- knowledge proof algorithm is generated according to identity information of the target user and/or device information of a terminal device used by the target user. (see paragraph 0011 and 0083-0086, Examiner’s note: zero knowledge proof method is provided to ensure that the specific transaction and the details of the specific blockchain network are kept confidential and can be verified, here an example is between users A and B)
As per claim 14, Lee teaches
further comprising: receiving a data acquisition request initiated by a requesting party for an evaluation behavior, the acquisition request comprising information of the evaluation behavior, a user identification of a user who implemented the evaluation behavior, and an object identification of a corresponding object of the evaluation behavior; obtaining a stored first to-be-verified data from the user blockchain network based on the information and the object identification, and obtaining a stored second to-be-verified data from the object blockchain network based on the information and the user identification; upon determination that the first to-be-verified data and the second to-be-verified data are identical, returning the data to the requesting party. (see paragraphs 0085-0086, Examiner’s note: teaches determining information is identical to determine for example a transfer of information between A and B occurred (See paragraphs 00085) further teaches this is used to generate blocks in the heterogenous blockchain (see paragraph 0086). Further paragraph 0039 teaches a block may be generated that includes information from both blockchains (see paragraph 0039).
Lee does not expressly teach taking into consideration time information when verifying blockchain data.
However, O’Brien et al. which is in the art of managing information in blockchain (see abstract and paragraphs 0017 and 0020) teaches taking into consideration time information when verifying blockchain data (see paragraphs 0043, 0053, 0071, Examiner’s note: transaction record can include time and distributing the transaction records to nodes in different chains (for example the product identifier and or ownership chain) to verify that the transaction complies with rules of the database).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee in view of O’Brien et al. with the aforementioned teachings from O’Brien et al. with the motivation of using another known type of transaction data in blockchain to verify records in multiple chains (see O’Brien paragraph 0043), when verifying records across blockchains with transaction data is known (see Lee et al. paragraphs 0085-0086)
As per claim 15, Lee teaches A data storage apparatus, applied to a node device deployed with a blockchain node, wherein the node device comprises one or more processors and a memory, (see paragraphs 0018-0021, Examiner’s note: being performed by software running on a computer).
wherein a user blockchain network comprises the blockchain node and one or more user nodes, and an object blockchain network comprises the blockchain node and one or more object nodes, and each of the user nodes or the object nodes is deployed on a node device, the blockchain node belongs to a user blockchain network and an object blockchain network, the user blockchain network is used to stores evaluation data generated by evaluation behavior of a target user on at least one object, and the object blockchain network is used to stores evaluation data generated by at least one user performing evaluation behavior on a target object, (see paragraphs 0011, 0044-0046, Figures 1 and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches multiple blockchains in an example one for car life cycle and one from driver life cycle and applying them to the occurrence of a car accident to determine information. Figures 1 and 5 show two different blockchains connected together by a connected node, this is the same blockchain function as shown in Applicant’s drawings see Figures 3-4).
Wherein the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network are respectively assigned different network identifications, a blockchain transaction and corresponding blockchain data generated in either the user blockchain network or the object blockchain network each carry the network identification of the blockchain network in which the blockchain transaction is generated, the blockchain node identifies, based on the network identification, whether a proposed blockchain transaction belongs to the user blockchain network or the object blockchain network, and stores blockchain data corresponding to the processed blockchain transaction in a corresponding data store; and a data store corresponding to the object blockchain network are isolated from each other, the apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to: (see paragraphs 0026, 0039, 0041, 0045-0046, and Figure 2 Examiner’s note: here teaches each blockchain includes blocks that are based on a census algorithm of that blockchain, and then the circle chain (connecting the two blockchains) may include hash information from each of the blockchains as shown in Figure 2).
obtain target evaluation data on the target object, the target evaluation data being generated by the target user performing target evaluation behavior on the target object; store the target evaluation data separately in the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network through the blockchain node; and perform cross verification between the target evaluation data stored separately in the user blockchain network and the object blockchain network based on cryptographic data Hash; wherein, to store, the target evaluation data, the one or more processors are configured to:: generate a first evaluation block and a second evaluation block respectively based on the target evaluation data; update the first evaluation block to a first blockchain ledger maintained by the user blockchain network, and updating the second evaluation block to a second blockchain ledger maintained by the object blockchain network; (see paragraphs 0026, 0042-0046, Figures 1, 2, and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches here information may be stored in different blockchains (see Figures 1, 2, and 5) and can be cross referenced in the circle chain by hash (see paragraphs 0042-0046), and teaches when a transaction occurs generating a unique block by a different consensus algorithm for the chain (See paragraph 0026)).
wherein to generate the first evaluation block and the second evaluation block, the one or more processors are configured to: generate the first evaluation block based on first historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data, and generate the second evaluation block based on second historical evaluation data and the target evaluation data; or generate the first evaluation block based on cryptographic data Hash of the first historical evaluation data and data hash of the target evaluation data, and generate the second evaluation block based on cryptographic data Hash of the second historical evaluation data and data hash the target evaluation data; wherein the first historical evaluation data was generated by the target user performing a first historical evaluation behavior on at least one object before the target evaluation behavior, and the second historical evaluation data was generated by at least one user performing a second historical evaluation behavior on the target object before the target evaluation behavior. (see paragraphs 0026, 0042-0046, Figures 1, 2, and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches here different information may be stored in different blockchains (see Figures 1, 2, and 5) and can be cross referenced in the circle chain by hash (see paragraphs 0042-0046), and teaches when a transaction occurs generating a unique block by a different consensus algorithm for the chain (See paragraph 0026). One example of the information stored in these different blockchains is car life cycle (blockchain a like changes in vehicle status and changes in vehicle owner) and driver life cycle (blockchain b like changes in drive state and changes in driver location) and the circle blockchain is (occurrence of a car accident). It is noted this is listed in the alternative therefore only one of the above is required by the claim).
Lee does not expressly teach the blockchains store information in databases.
However, O’Brien et al. which is in the art of managing information in blockchain (see abstract and paragraphs 0017 and 0020) teach the blockchains store information in databases (see paragraph 0037, Examiner’s note: teaches storing blockchain information in the same or different distributed databases).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with the aforementioned teachings from O’Brien et al. with the motivation of providing a common computer storage element to store information in blockchain (see O’Brien et al. paragraph 0037), when Lee teaches storing information in different blockchains is known (see Lee paragraphs 0026, 0042-0046, Figures 1, 2, and 5).
As per claim 16, Lee teaches
wherein the blockchain node comprises a first blockchain node in the user blockchain network and a second blockchain node in the object blockchain network, and the processors are further configured to: store the target evaluation data to the user blockchain network through the first blockchain node, and store the target evaluation data to the object blockchain network through the second blockchain node. (see paragraphs 0011, 0044-0046, Figures 1 and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches multiple blockchains in an example one for car life cycle and one from driver life cycle and applying them to the occurrence of a car accident to determine information. Figures 1 and 5 show two different blockchains connected together by a connected node, this is the same blockchain function as shown in Applicant’s drawings see Figures 3-4).
As per claim 29, Lee teaches An electronic device comprising: a processor; a memory used to store processor executable instructions; wherein the processor is configured to implement the method according to claim 1. (see paragraphs 0017-0020, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform functions).
As per claim 30, Lee teaches A computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, wherein, when the program is executed by a processor, the computer program implements steps of the method according to claim 1. (see paragraphs 0017-0020, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform functions).
Lee does not expressly disclose the computer readable medium being non-transitory
However, O’Brien et al. which is in the art of managing information in blockchain (see abstract and paragraphs 0017 and 0020) teaches the computer readable medium being non-transitory (see paragraph 0076, Examiner’s note: a non-transitory computer readable medium to implement the steps).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee in view of O’Brien et al. with the aforementioned teachings from O’Brien et al. with the motivation of providing a specific known type of computer readable medium to implement the steps of the method (see O’Brien et al. paragraph 0076), when it is already known that the steps can be implemented in a computer readable medium (see Lee paragraphs 0017-0020)
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20210150810) further in view of O’Brien et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968) further in view of Newell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0362376).
As per claim 9, Lee teaches
wherein storing the target evaluation data comprises: storing the target evaluation data. (see paragraphs 0026, 0042-0046, Figures 1, 2, and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches here different information may be stored in different blockchains (see Figures 1, 2, and 5) and can be cross referenced in the circle chain by hash (see paragraphs 0042-0046), and teaches when a transaction occurs generating a unique block by a different consensus algorithm for the chain (See paragraph 0026). One example of the information stored in these different blockchains is car life cycle (blockchain a like changes in vehicle status and changes in vehicle owner) and driver life cycle (blockchain b like changes in drive state and changes in driver location) and the circle blockchain is (occurrence of a car accident). It is noted this is listed in the alternative therefore only one of the above is required by the claim).
Lee in view of O’Brien et al. does not expressly teach determining reviews meet a degree of diversity or more specifically as recited in the claims of determining a diversity degree of evaluations of the target user based on historical evaluation records of the target user; in response to the diversity degree of evaluations meeting a preset diversity degree threshold.
However, Newell et al. which is in the art of managing blockchain conversations (See abstract) teaches determining reviews meet a degree of diversity of more specifically as recited in the claims of determining a diversity degree of evaluations of the target user based on historical evaluation records of the target user; in response to the diversity degree of evaluations meeting a preset diversity degree threshold (see paragraphs 0015, 0020, 0024, 0029, and 0059, Examiner’s note: determining if the conversations are valid based on various factors like not the same review by the same person, and comparing to a threshold to then store the data in the blockchain).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee in view of O’Brien with the aforementioned teachings from Newell et al. with the motivation of providing a way to determine another type of user event occurring in daily life for example if a review is appropriate or meets requirements before awarding a user (see Newell et al. paragraph 0025), when using the blockchain to describe various user events that occur in daily life (see Lee paragraphs 0042 and 0043) and providing incentives for entities operating within the blockchain environment by completing a desired task (see Lee paragraph 0003) are all known.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20210150810) further in view of O’Brien et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968) further in view of Dorward (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0138791)).
As per claim 12, Lee teaches
further comprising: in response to determining that the target evaluation data has been successfully stored in the user blockchain network or the object blockchain network, being able to perform additional operations (see paragraphs 0026, 0042-0046, Figures 1, 2, and 5, Examiner’s note: teaches here different information may be stored in different blockchains (see Figures 1, 2, and 5) and can be cross referenced in the circle chain by hash (see paragraphs 0042-0046), and teaches when a transaction occurs generating a unique block by a different consensus algorithm for the chain (See paragraph 0026). One example of the information stored in these different blockchains is car life cycle (blockchain a like changes in vehicle status and changes in vehicle owner) and driver life cycle (blockchain b like changes in drive state and changes in driver location) and the circle blockchain is (occurrence of a car accident). It is noted this is listed in the alternative therefore only one of the above is required by the claim).
Lee in view of O’Brien et al. does not expressly teach triggering allocation of an available benefit corresponding to the target evaluation data and/or the target evaluation behavior to the target user.
However, Dorward which is in the art of storing review information on the blockchain (see abstract) teaches triggering allocation of an available benefit corresponding to the target evaluation data and/or the target evaluation behavior to the target user (see paragraph 0057, Examiner’s note: reward for completing a review where the review is stored on the blockchain).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee in view of O’Brien with the aforementioned teachings from Dorward with the motivation of providing a way to provide a way to incentive another member of the system being giving them an award by completing desired task that occurs in daily life like completing a review (see Doward paragraph 0057), when providing cryptocurrency for those who complete a desired task in the system (see Lee paragraph 0003) as well as the blockchain system can describe various user events that occur in daily life are known (see Lee paragraph 0042).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20210150810) further in view of O’Brien et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0349968) further in view of Murray et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0335414).
As per claim 13,Lee in view of O’Brien does not expressly teach further comprising: in response to an evaluation cancellation request initiated for the target evaluation data, triggering the blockchain node to execute a corresponding evaluation cancellation transaction that freezes a permission of a preset type of blockchain nodes to read the stored target evaluation data.
However, Murray which is in the art of blockchain reviews (see abstract) teaches further comprising: in response to an evaluation cancellation request initiated for the target evaluation data, triggering the blockchain node to execute a corresponding evaluation cancellation transaction that freezes a permission of a preset type of blockchain nodes to read the stored target evaluation data (see paragraphs 0026 and 0060, Examiner’s note: here teaches not allowing certain parties to update or access data in the blockchain).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee in view of O’Brien with the aforementioned teachings from Murray with the motivation of preventing access to reviews from poor past behavior like prohibited behavior or leaking of previous reviews (see Murray paragraphs 0026 and 0060), when protecting from fraud and attacker nodes (se O’Brien paragraphs 0040, 00565, and 0068) and implementing security risk measures are known (see Lee paragraphs 005 and 0083)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Frang RevBlock: A Blockchain-based secure Customer Review System 2020 IEEE discusses putting customer reviews on the blockchain (see all pages)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights