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
The following office action in response to the RCE filed on 5/11/2026.
Claims 1 and 14 are currently amended.
Claims 2-5 and 15-20 were previously presented.
Claims 16-13 were previously withdrawn.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application AFTER FINAL rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the FINALITY of the previous Office Action has been WITHDRAWN pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/2026 has been entered.
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 1-5 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5 and 14-20 are directed to a method, a system, which is a process, machine, manufacturer or composition of matter and thus statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), the plurality of NFTs including an NFT of a vehicle and one or more NFTs of various users, wherein the various users include two or more of: a seller of the vehicle, a buyer of the vehicle, a lending institution providing financing for the vehicle, an insurance agency providing an insurance policy for the vehicle, a regulatory authority that regulates an operation of the vehicle, and a government agency that issues a title of the vehicle; provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing one or more transactions between the various users of the vehicle management system, wherein the smart contracts are created by the various users, and wherein the smart contracts are executed at the contracts, and wherein the one or more transactions include one or more of: transferring funds of a buyer to a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting and receiving updated title data from a government agency, and storing the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering a license plate of the vehicle with a regulatory authority, and storing registration data received from the regulatory authority in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling an insurance policy of the seller with an insurance agent, and removing insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more digital keys of the seller to the vehicle with the vehicle in the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more smart contracts of the seller regarding the vehicle in the NFT of the seller and/or the NFT of the vehicle; and generating a digital key for the buyer, storing the digital key in the NFT of the buyer and/or the NFT of the vehicle, and sending the digital key to the buyer”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations, business relations, i.e. managing the ownership data via the smart contracts) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of covers performance of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of a blockchain, a streaming service, a contract executing virtual machine (VM), a vehicle management system and a computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs)…; …provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing… one or more transactions between the various users; created the smart contracts…linked to or associated with the vehicle; transferring… funds from a first digital wallet of a buyer to a second digital wallet of a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting, receiving and storing…the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering… a license plate of the vehicle, and storing… registration data in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling… an insurance policy of the seller, and removing …insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating… one or more digital keys of the seller; disassociating …one or more smart contracts of the seller to the vehicle; and generating …a digital key for the buyer, storing… the digital key in the NFT of the buyer, and sending …the digital key to the buyer”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. The computing device is further recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “installed…a copy of the blockchain…without communicating…with the vehicle management system, thus nothing more than “installed the copy blockchain and not communicate/interact with the vehicle management system”. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the blockchain, the streaming service, the contract executing virtual machine (VM), a vehicle management system and a computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs)…; …provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing… one or more transactions between the various users; created the smart contracts…linked to or associated with the vehicle; transferring… funds from a first digital wallet of a buyer to a second digital wallet of a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting, receiving and storing…the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering… a license plate of the vehicle, and storing… registration data in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling… an insurance policy of the seller, and removing …insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating… one or more digital keys of the seller; disassociating …one or more smart contracts of the seller to the vehicle; and generating …a digital key for the buyer, storing… the digital key in the NFT of the buyer, and sending …the digital key to the buyer”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. The computing device is further recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “installed…a copy of the blockchain…without communicating…with the vehicle management system, thus nothing more than “installed the copy blockchain and not communicate/interact with the vehicle management system”. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…creating a first non-fungible token (NFT) for the vehicle including data of the vehicle, and storing the first NFT, the first NFT including a first set of one or more smart contracts for initiating and conducting a sale of the vehicle to a buyer, wherein the first set of one or more smart contracts specify requirements for transferring ownership of the vehicle; creating a second NFT for an owner of the vehicle including data of the owner, and storing the second NFT, the second NFT including a second set of one or more smart contracts created by the owner/seller, and the second set of one or more smart contracts establishing conditions of the owner for selling the vehicle; creating a third NFT for a prospective buyer of the vehicle including data of the buyer, and storing the third NFT, the third NFT including a third set of one or more smart contracts created by the buyer and establishing conditions of the buyer for purchasing the vehicle; receiving event data relating to the first, second, and/or third sets of one or more smart contracts, provides the event data in real time to one or more contract, execute the first, second, and/or third sets of one or more smart contracts based on the event data; and in response to the one or more contract executing, executing a smart contract of the first set of one or more smart contracts, and in response to the one or more contract executing, determining that the conditions of the owner for selling the vehicle and the conditions of the buyer for purchasing the vehicle have been satisfied based on the event data, performing one or more transactions for changing ownership of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer, wherein the one or more transactions include at least transferring funds from the buyer to the seller, and updating the first NFT to associate the vehicle with the buyer and disassociate the vehicle from the seller”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations, business relations, i.e. managing the ownership data via the smart contracts) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of covers performance of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed method of a blockchain, a streaming service, a vehicle management system, one or more contract executing virtual machines (VM) and one or more computing devices that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “creating… a first non-fungible token (NFT) for the vehicle, and storing… the first NFT; creating …a second NFT for an owner of the vehicle, and storing… the second NFT; creating …a third NFT for a prospective buyer of the vehicle, and storing …the third NFT; receiving… event data…; provides …the event data in real time to one or more contract…; execute …the first, second, and/or third sets of one or more smart contracts; executing…a smart contract of the first set of one or more smart contracts; determining …that the conditions of the owner for selling and purchasing the vehicle have been satisfied; performing…transactions for changing ownership of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer; transferring …funds from a digital wallet of the buyer to a digital wallet of the seller; updating… the first NFT to associate the vehicle with the buyer and disassociate… the vehicle from the seller”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. The computing device and the one or more contract executing (VM) are further recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “installed…a copy of the blockchain; execute…the sets of one or more smart contracts…without communicating…with the vehicle management system”, thus nothing more than “installed the copy of the blockchain, execute the sets of smart contracts and not (without) communicate/interact with the vehicle management system”. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the blockchain, the streaming service, the vehicle management system, the one or more contract executing virtual machines (VM) and the one or more computing devices that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “creating… a first non-fungible token (NFT) for the vehicle, and storing… the first NFT; creating …a second NFT for an owner of the vehicle, and storing… the second NFT; creating …a third NFT for a prospective buyer of the vehicle, and storing …the third NFT; receiving… event data…; provides …the event data in real time to one or more contract…; execute …the first, second, and/or third sets of one or more smart contracts; executing…a smart contract of the first set of one or more smart contracts; determining …that the conditions of the owner for selling and purchasing the vehicle have been satisfied; performing…transactions for changing ownership of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer; transferring …funds from a digital wallet of the buyer to a digital wallet of the seller; updating… the first NFT to associate the vehicle with the buyer and disassociate… the vehicle from the seller”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. The computing device and the one or more contract executing (VM) are further recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “installed…a copy of the blockchain; execute…the sets of one or more smart contracts…without communicating…with the vehicle management system”, thus nothing more than “installed the copy of the blockchain, execute the sets of smart contracts and not (without) communicate/interact with the vehicle management system”. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 15-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 14. Therefore, claims 2-5 and 15-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1 and 14. Claims 2-5 and 15-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the computing device, the blockchain, the virtual machines (VM), the streaming service, the vehicle management system and the one or more computing devices included in the dependent claims 3, 15, 16, 17, 19 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “stored…the one or more NFTs of the various users of the vehicle management state; and executed…the smart contracts…(claim 3); executed…the smart contracts based on data (claim 15, claim 16, claim 17); receiving…a request to associate new data; generating…an NFT for the sender; stream, receive and adding…the new data (claim 19), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-5 and 15-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the computing device, the blockchain, the virtual machines (VM), the streaming service, the vehicle management system and the one or more computing devices included in the dependent claims 3, 15, 16, 17, 19 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “stored…the one or more NFTs of the various users of the vehicle management state; and executed…the smart contracts…(claim 3); executed…the smart contracts based on data (claim 15, claim 16, claim 17); receiving…a request to associate new data; generating…an NFT for the sender; stream, receive and adding…the new data (claim 19), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-5 and 15-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim rejections – 35 USC § 101
The updated rejections of claims 1-5 and 14-20 in view of Alice have been provided in the light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant argued that: “…claims that recite a judicial exception are not "directed to" a judicial exception if they "improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field." See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981); Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972))…” (Please see the remarks on pages 14-19).
Answer 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the office has explained above that the claim recites the limitations of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), the plurality of NFTs including an NFT of a vehicle and one or more NFTs of various users, wherein the various users include two or more of: a seller of the vehicle, a buyer of the vehicle, a lending institution providing financing for the vehicle, an insurance agency providing an insurance policy for the vehicle, a regulatory authority that regulates an operation of the vehicle, and a government agency that issues a title of the vehicle; provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing one or more transactions between the various users of the vehicle management system, wherein the smart contracts are created by the various users, and wherein the smart contracts are executed at the contracts, and wherein the one or more transactions include one or more of: transferring funds of a buyer to a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting and receiving updated title data from a government agency, and storing the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering a license plate of the vehicle with a regulatory authority, and storing registration data received from the regulatory authority in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling an insurance policy of the seller with an insurance agent, and removing insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more digital keys of the seller to the vehicle with the vehicle in the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more smart contracts of the seller regarding the vehicle in the NFT of the seller and/or the NFT of the vehicle; and generating a digital key for the buyer, storing the digital key in the NFT of the buyer and/or the NFT of the vehicle, and sending the digital key to the buyer”. These recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations, business relations, i.e. managing the ownership data via the smart contracts) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of covers performance of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of the generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the MPEP 2106.04(a) states that: “…Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”. Thus, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), Examiner (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) (…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), the plurality of NFTs including an NFT of a vehicle and one or more NFTs of various users, wherein the various users include two or more of: a seller of the vehicle, a buyer of the vehicle, a lending institution providing financing for the vehicle, an insurance agency providing an insurance policy for the vehicle, a regulatory authority that regulates an operation of the vehicle, and a government agency that issues a title of the vehicle; provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing one or more transactions between the various users of the vehicle management system, wherein the smart contracts are created by the various users, and wherein the smart contracts are executed at the contracts, and wherein the one or more transactions include one or more of: transferring funds of a buyer to a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting and receiving updated title data from a government agency, and storing the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering a license plate of the vehicle with a regulatory authority, and storing registration data received from the regulatory authority in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling an insurance policy of the seller with an insurance agent, and removing insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more digital keys of the seller to the vehicle with the vehicle in the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more smart contracts of the seller regarding the vehicle in the NFT of the seller and/or the NFT of the vehicle; and generating a digital key for the buyer, storing the digital key in the NFT of the buyer and/or the NFT of the vehicle, and sending the digital key to the buyer) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas of “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity: commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations, business relations, i.e. managing the ownership data via the smart contracts) in the Appellant’s claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) (…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), the plurality of NFTs including an NFT of a vehicle and one or more NFTs of various users, wherein the various users include two or more of: a seller of the vehicle, a buyer of the vehicle, a lending institution providing financing for the vehicle, an insurance agency providing an insurance policy for the vehicle, a regulatory authority that regulates an operation of the vehicle, and a government agency that issues a title of the vehicle; provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing one or more transactions between the various users of the vehicle management system, wherein the smart contracts are created by the various users, and wherein the smart contracts are executed at the contracts, and wherein the one or more transactions include one or more of: transferring funds of a buyer to a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting and receiving updated title data from a government agency, and storing the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering a license plate of the vehicle with a regulatory authority, and storing registration data received from the regulatory authority in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling an insurance policy of the seller with an insurance agent, and removing insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more digital keys of the seller to the vehicle with the vehicle in the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating one or more smart contracts of the seller regarding the vehicle in the NFT of the seller and/or the NFT of the vehicle; and generating a digital key for the buyer, storing the digital key in the NFT of the buyer and/or the NFT of the vehicle, and sending the digital key to the buyer) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One”.
Therefore, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a), it is reasonable to conclude that Applicant’s claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One” (Please see the remarks on pages 14-19). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Argument 2: Applicant argued that: “…Even if the Office maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, which Applicant refutes, the claims nonetheless recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B…” (Please see the remarks on pages 16-20).
Answer 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the claimed system of a blockchain, a streaming service, a contract executing virtual machine (VM), a vehicle management system and a computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs)…; …provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing… one or more transactions between the various users; created the smart contracts…linked to or associated with the vehicle; transferring… funds from a first digital wallet of a buyer to a second digital wallet of a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting, receiving and storing…the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering… a license plate of the vehicle, and storing… registration data in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling… an insurance policy of the seller, and removing …insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating… one or more digital keys of the seller; disassociating …one or more smart contracts of the seller to the vehicle; and generating …a digital key for the buyer, storing… the digital key in the NFT of the buyer, and sending …the digital key to the buyer”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. The computing device is further recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “installed…a copy of the blockchain…without communicating…with the vehicle management system, thus nothing more than “installed the copy blockchain and not communicate/interact with the vehicle management system”. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the blockchain, the streaming service, the contract executing virtual machine (VM), a vehicle management system and a computing device that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…stores a plurality of non-fungible tokens (NFTs)…; …provide event data in real time to a contract; automatically completing… one or more transactions between the various users; created the smart contracts…linked to or associated with the vehicle; transferring… funds from a first digital wallet of a buyer to a second digital wallet of a seller to pay a purchase price of the vehicle; requesting, receiving and storing…the updated title data in the NFT of the vehicle; registering… a license plate of the vehicle, and storing… registration data in the NFT of the vehicle; cancelling… an insurance policy of the seller, and removing …insurance data of the seller from the NFT of the vehicle; disassociating… one or more digital keys of the seller; disassociating …one or more smart contracts of the seller to the vehicle; and generating …a digital key for the buyer, storing… the digital key in the NFT of the buyer, and sending …the digital key to the buyer”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. The computing device is further recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “installed…a copy of the blockchain…without communicating…with the vehicle management system, thus nothing more than “installed the copy blockchain and not communicate/interact with the vehicle management system”. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Argument 3: Applicant argued that: “…Thus, the subject application explains that by executing the smart contracts "at the contract executing VM of the blockchain and a contract executing VM of a copy of the blockchain installed on a computing device of a user of the various users without communicating with the vehicle management system," as required by amended claim 1, increased security, increased execution speed, and a reduced overhead processing is achieved. This limitation is not a mere instruction to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer. Rather, it defines a specific distributed execution architecture that achieves concrete technical benefits, as described in Applicant's published application and the SMED. This is precisely the type of improvement to technology or a technical field that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(a); McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)…” (Please see the remarks on page 18).
Answer 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The computing device is further recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “installed…a copy of the blockchain…without communicating…with the vehicle management system, thus nothing more than “installed the copy blockchain and not communicate/interact with the vehicle management system”. Thus, this limitation amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the limitation "at the contract executing VM of the blockchain and a contract executing VM of a copy of the blockchain installed on a computing device of a user of the various users without communicating with the vehicle management system," does not increased security, increased execution speed, and a reduced overhead processing is achieved.
For the above reasons, it is believed that Appellant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and the rejections should be sustained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights