DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Final Rejection office action is in response to the amendments filed on 03/17/2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10, 14-15, 17, and 22 have been amended. Claims 5-7, 16, 18, and 21 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 8-15, 17, 19-20, and 22 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/040,792 claims priority of provisional application 63/069,940 dated 08/25/2020 and application PCT/US2021/047419 dated 08/24/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2026, 03/17/2026, and 04/02/2026 were filed after the mailing date. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 8-15, 17, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-3, 8-15, 17, 19-20, and 22 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method for generating an insight from public data for potential commercial exploitation by receiving a document that is submitted for compliance and extracting and analyzing the documents content. For the Claims 1, 10, and 17 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
identify a plurality of conditions;
access an object story […] that includes:
a globally unique identifier […];
a type field with a value of product type to indicate that the object story is associated with a product;
an owner field with a first value that is associated with an entity […] with information associated with a manufacturer of the product; and
a plurality of element fields with values associated with a corresponding plurality of element […], wherein the plurality of element fields includes:
an origin field with a second value that is associated with an origin data structure of the plurality of element […];
a custody field with a third value that is associated with a custody data structure of the plurality of element […];
a consumption field with a fourth value that is associated with a consumption data structure of the plurality of element […]; and
a conversion field with a fifth value that is associated with a conversion data structure of the plurality of element […], wherein an element […] of the plurality of element […] has: a chain of claim elements and a chain of evidence elements, wherein: the chain of claim elements includes a first claim element having a first statement about the product, a link to a second claim element of the chain of claim elements, a […] one or more previous claim elements in the chain of claim elements, and an indication of a first evidence element of the chain of evidence elements;
the first evidence element to support the first statement with a first level of evidence and includes a link to a second evidence element of the chain of evidence elements, and […] one or more previous evidence elements in the chain of evidence elements, the second evidence element is to support the first statement with a second level of evidence; and
each of the chain of claim elements and the chain of evidence elements is stored […];
determine whether the plurality of conditions are met based on the chain of claim elements and the chain of evidence elements, wherein a first condition of the plurality of conditions is that at least one of the plurality of evidence elements supports the statement with at least a threshold level of evidence based on a predefined rule that ranks a plurality of levels of evidence from a lowest level to a highest level, the plurality of levels of evidence to include the first level of evidence, the second level of evidence, and the threshold level of evidence; and
output an indication of whether the plurality of conditions are met, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that “certain method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person's interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a device, object story data structure, non-transitory computer-readable storage media, memory, network interface, processing circuitry, cryptographic hash, blockchain or distributed ledger, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the device, object story data structure, non-transitory computer-readable storage media, memory, network interface, and processing circuitry, cryptographic hash, blockchain or distributed ledger, this claim encompasses a person to identify a plurality of conditions, access an object story that includes: a globally unique identifier, a type field with a value of product type to indicate that the object story is associated with a product, an owner field with a first value that is associated with an entity with information associated with a manufacturer of the product, and a plurality of element fields with values associated with a corresponding plurality of element, wherein the plurality of element fields includes: an origin field with a second value that is associated with an origin data structure of the plurality of elements, a custody field with a third value that is associated with a custody data structure of the plurality of elements, a consumption field with a fourth value that is associated with a consumption data structure of the plurality of elements, and a conversion field with a fifth value that is associated with a conversion data structure of the plurality of element, wherein an element of the plurality of elements has: a chain of claim elements and a chain of evidence elements, wherein: the chain of claim elements includes a first claim element having a first statement about the product, a link to a second claim element of the chain of claim elements, and one or more previous claim elements, in the chain of claim elements, and an indication of a first evidence element of the chain of evidence elements; the first evidence element is to support the first statement with a first level of evidence, and includes a link to a second evidence element of the chain of evidence elements, the second evidence element is to support the first statement with a second level of evidence, and each of the chain of claim elements and the chain of evidence elements is stored, determine whether the plurality of conditions are met based on the chain of claim elements and the chain of evidence elements, wherein a first condition of the plurality of conditions is that at least one of the plurality of evidence elements supports the statement with at least a threshold level of evidence based on a predefined rule that ranks a plurality of levels of evidence from a lowest level to a highest level, the plurality of levels of evidence to include the first level of evidence, the second level of evidence, and threshold level of evidence; and output and indication of whether the plurality of conditions are met, based on this data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, Claims 1, 10 and 17 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 17 recites the additional elements of an object story data structure (Claims 1, 10, and 17), non-transitory computer-readable storage media (Claim 1), a device (Claim 1), distributed ledger or blockchain (Claims 1, 10, and 17), a memory (Claims 10), a network interface (Claims 10), processing circuitry (Claim 10), that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of cryptography, distributed ledger or blockchain, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an object story data structure (Claims 1, 10, and 17), non-transitory computer-readable storage media (Claim 1), a device (Claim 1), a device (Claim 1), distributed ledger or blockchain (Claims 1, 10, and 17), a memory (Claims 10), a network interface (Claims 10), processing circuitry (Claim 10), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of cryptography, distributed ledger or blockchain, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 10, and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11-15, and 19-20, and 22, are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 as discussed above. Claim 2 merely describes(s) to incorporate a third claim element and a third evidence element into the element data structure, the third claim element to include a statement related to an outcome of the determination of whether the plurality of conditions are met and the third evidence element to support the statement of the third claim element. Claim 3 merely describes(s) wherein determining the plurality of conditions are not met based on a determination that none of the plurality of evidence elements support statement with at least the threshold level of evidence. Claim 4 merely describes(s) detecting creation of the first claim element with the statement and determining if the conditions are met and output the indication that of whether the plurality of conditions are met based on detection of the creation of the claim element with the statement. Claim 8 merely describes(s) outputting the indication of whether the plurality of conditions are met for transmission to an entity associated with the plurality of conditions. Claim 9 merely describes(s) the indication being a message. Claim 11 merely describes(s) monitoring data to detect a change. Claim 12 merely describes(s) receiving a request and detecting an event based on the request. Claim 13 merely describes(s) a message and token with access rights, and detecting a trigger event based on performance of the access operation. Claim 14 merely describes(s) incorporating a third claim element and a third evidence element into the element data structure of the plurality of element data structures, the third claim element to include a statement related to an outcome of the determination of whether the plurality of conditions are met and the third evidence element to support the statement of the third claim element. Claim 20 merely describe(s) sending a request for an element incorporated into the object story data structure with a security token. Claim 22 merely describes(s) incorporating a claim elements into the data structure when a condition is satisfied.
Dependent Claim(s) 15, and 19 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 10, and 17. In addition, it recites the additional elements of a network interface, and local or remote data sources. The network interface, and local or remote data sources, are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 8-9, 11-15, and 19-20, and 22 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable from Prior Art
The cited prior art fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features of the threshold level of evidence based on a predefined rule that ranks a plurality of levels of evidence from a lowest level to a highest level, the plurality of levels of evidence to include the first level of evidence, the second level of evidence, and the threshold level of evidence.
Biernat (US20190340269A1) discloses identifying a plurality of conditions, and determining whether the plurality of conditions are met.
Hayes (US20120054049A1) discloses accessing an object story data structure that includes: a globally unique identifier to identify an object story, a type field with a value of product type to indicate that the object story is associated with a product, an owner field with a first value that is associated with an entity data structure with information associated with a manufacturer of the product, a plurality of element field with value associated with a corresponding plurality of element data structures, wherein the plurality of elements field includes: an origin field with a second value that is associated with an origin data structure of the plurality of element data structures, a custody field with a third value that is associated with a custody data structure of the plurality of element data structures, a consumption field with a fourth value that is associated with a consumption data structure of the plurality of element data structures, and a conversion field with a fifth value that is associated with a conversion data structure of the plurality of element data structures.
Wentz (US20200162268A1) discloses an element data structure of the plurality of element data structures has a chain of claim elements with a first claim element having a first statement about the product, a link to a second claim element of the chain of claim elements, cryptographic hash of one or more previous claim elements in the chain of claim elements, a chain of evidence elements with a first evidence element to support the first statement with a first level of evidence, the first evidence element having a link to a second evidence element of the chain of evidence elements, and a cryptographic hash of one or more previous evidence elements in the chain of evidence elements, the second evidence element is to support the first statement with a second level of evidence, a first condition of the plurality of conditions is that at least one of the plurality of evidence elements supports the statement with at least a threshold level of evidence, and each of the chain of claim elements and the chain of evidence elements stored in a distributed ledger or blockchain.
The combinations fail to teach the features of the threshold level of evidence based on a predefined rule that ranks a plurality of levels of evidence from a lowest level to a highest level, the plurality of levels of evidence to include the first level of evidence, the second level of evidence, and the threshold level of evidence in combination with the other claim limitations.
Therefore, in combination with the other limitations clearly claimed render claims 1, 10, and 17 distinguishable over prior art. Claims 2-4, 8-9, 11-15, 19-20, and 22 would also be distinguishable over prior art due to their dependencies on claims 1, 10, and 17.
An updated search and Non-Patent Literature search was conducted and no relevant art was found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112, have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The 112 Rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's declaration traversing the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections filed 03/17/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Additionally, the Examiner has considered the Affidavit- traversing rejections or objections rule 132 file 03/17/2026.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 03/17/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-22 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and as being unpatentable over Biernat et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0340269), in view of Hayes (U.S. Patent No. 5,687,737), and in further view of Wentz (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0162268) as applied under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth in the last office action because: It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the clamed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness, supported by evidence, showing why the claims at issue would have been obvious in light of the prior art references (noted above) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and further evaluated the claims based upon Mayo/Alice analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101 two-step framework and provided the results of the analysis in the Non-Final Action dated 12/17/2025. Applicant’s declaration fails to provide rebuttal evidence since it refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. As such the declaration does not show that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant’s conclusory statements have been considered but are not of substantial evidentiary value when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application. In re Brandstadter, 484 F. 2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection applicant argues, “the embodiments of the invention…represent an improvement to existing technologies…these improvements stem from the ability to separately manage distinct, but linked, chains of claim elements and evidence elements”, and that “the linked chain structure… will reduce ‘both the storage and processing resources required to store, access, and modify the elements of the linked chains’”. Applicant then states the claims recite additional elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer, or an improvement to other technology or field and are directed to patentable subject matter. Applicants arguments have been reconsidered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “orthogonal chain structure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As noted in the declaration (page 2) submitted 03/17/2026, it discusses that the invention is directed to "updating information of an object story data structure (OSDS)”. It also discusses that, “the processing circuitry is to ‘add, subtract, or alter information of the object story data structure based on the request’, and add third claim/evidence elements based on the addition, subtraction, or alteration”. In addition, applicant’s disclosure also emphasizes methods/systems for maintaining information about the source and production of a manufactured or agricultural object whereby information is created, provided, and claimed. Claims are accompanied by evidence information that proves the validity of the claim, which are aggregated and stored during the lifetime of the product, and the object story represents the information about a product at each of the steps along the growing or manufacturing process and thereafter embodied in an object story data structure stored in one or more of a set of networked, distributed computing nodes and data structures. The specification further describes operations of an electronic contract between a manufacturer and a component supplier which specifies conditions the electronic contract takes if conditions are/are not met. Examiner contends that the invention is directed toward the abstract idea for receiving a request to alter information of an object story wherein the object story includes a chain of claim elements and a chain of evidence elements, adding/subtracting/altering information of the object story based on the request wherein the information is an element of the chain of claim elements or the chain of evidence elements, adding to the object story a third claim element with an indication of additional/subtraction alteration of the information of the object story based on the request, and adding to the object story a third evidence element to the chain of evidence elements to support the indication with a second level of evidence. Hence, pertains to (i) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and (ii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and directed to certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s computing components (“object story data structure”, “non-transitory computer-readable storage media”, “device”, “distributed ledger”, “cryptographic hash”, “blockchain”, “memory”, “network interface”, “processing circuitry”) for receiving, altering, and adding data, are well-known, performing routine and conventionally activity, and generically used as a tool (see at least Page 6, 8, and 40 of applicant’s disclosure) for data gathering, and processing based on rules logic to further process received information and to implement the abstract idea. Moreover, giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of applicant’s object story data and component story data structure in light of the specification, the claimed elements are merely used to receive, and update data based on user requests (See “Object story data structure: a data structure that includes or incorporates elemental aspects of an object story, the data structure or elemental aspects may be distributed across set of networked, distributed nodes” (Page 6); “The object story represents the information about a product at each of the steps along the growing or manufacturing process and thereafter. This information constituting an object story is embodied in an object story data structure that may be stored in one or more of a set of networked, distributed computing nodes and data structures…. The object story may represent elemental aspects over the development and functional lifetime of the product” (Page 6); “The computing information system 260 implement, in software and hardware, the roles of the various actors in Figure 1, accessing (for example, reading or writing) the object story or elements thereof as necessary” (Page 8); “processors 3801 may access object story code 3807 stored in the memory/storage 3802. Upon executing the object story code 3807 the device 3800 may manage (including generating, accessing, storing, etc.) object story data structures 3808 as described herein” (Page 40). Hence, the object data structure and component data structure merely maintain information in the lifecycle process of a product in a customized manner utilizing generic computing components in a manner that is well-understood, routine and conventional (processing, updating, managing data) in the field and are recited at a high level of generality. Examiner again reiterates that there is no improvement to the computer functionality itself, nor is there evidence in the disclosure to suggest achieving an actual improvement in blockchain technology.
In addition, Applicant’s disclosure only generically teaches using distributed ledgers/blockchains to incorporate claims and evidence elements in a manner that is also well-understood, routine and conventional activities (a (secured) shared distributed database) to perform the abstract idea. Collecting and organizing data is mere automation of mere automation of a manual process that was performed before computers and thus is not an improvement to a computer or any specific computer technology-see MPEP 2106.05. Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ22d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Considering applicant’s claim(s) both individually and as an ordered combination they fail to add subject matter beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Therefore, applicant has not shown an improvement in the computer functionality itself, or any specific computer technology (distributed ledger or blockchain); nor do the claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into any practical application under the guidance of MPEP section 2106.04(d) or 2106.05(a). In view of the above, Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The 103 Rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
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 Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626