DETAILED ACTION
Response received on March 06, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 6, and 11 have been amended. Therefore, Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 Office action is in response to the application filed on 05/03/2023 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 03/06/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/142,687 was filed on 05/03/2023 and is a continuation of application PCT/JP2020/043491 filed on 11/20/2020.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of March 06, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action. The examiner acknowledges the amendments made to Claim 1, 6, and 11.
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 1‐15 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 1‐5 are directed to a non-transitory CRM (apparatus), Claims 6-10 are directed to a method (process), and Claim 11-12 are directed to device (machine/apparatus). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 6 and 11. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program that causes at least one computer to execute a process, the process comprising: acquiring first trail data to be registered in a traceability system, the first trail data including confidential transaction information; registering, in a second distributed ledger selectively accessible only by a subset of the plurality of organizations, a first identifier that corresponds to the first trail data and first information including the confidential transaction information, thereby maintaining confidentiality of the first information within the subset of organizations; and registering, in a first distributed ledger to which all organizations of the traceability system refer, the first identifier and a hash value of the first information registered in the second distributed ledger, wherein the first distributed ledger and the second distributed ledger are structurally distinct ledgers, and wherein the hash value registered in the first distributed ledger serves as a data integrity anchor for the first information, enabling any organization from the plurality of organizations to computationally verify an integrity of the confidential transaction information without requiring access to or disclosure of the confidential transaction information stored in the second distributed ledger, thereby solving a technical problem specific to distributed ledger systems of simultaneously ensuring data integrity and confidentiality across multiple, non-trusting entities.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of using a traceability system that can verify how a product is manufactured and processed in an open manner. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the data processor and related computer components, this claim encompasses acquiring data in a traceability system, registering that identifier that corresponds to that data, and providing a traceability system that can be accessed by certain users of the organization, which could be performed manually in a conventional company environment. Additionally, acquiring trail data, assigning identifiers, recording information into multiple ledgers are all forms of bookkeeping, coordination, and information exchange between business entities. These are longstanding commercial practices that can be performed by people using pen and paper. Multiple organizations could manually record transaction details in a private ledger, assign a reference identifier to the transaction, and record a summarized verification code in a shared public ledger so that other organizations can confirm the integrity of the transaction without viewing the confidential details. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers legal and commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “non-transitory CRM” “information processing program”, “distributed ledger”, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1, 6 and 11 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 (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites ““non-transitory CRM”, “information processing program”, “distributed ledger”, and “the cryptographic hash”. Claim 6 recites a “computer”, “distributed ledger”, and “the cryptographic hash”. Additionally, Claim 11 recites an “information processing device”, “distributed ledger” , “processor”, “memories”, and “the cryptographic hash”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements (combination of computer and the use ledgers) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1, 6, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without an integration into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of using non-transitory CRM”, “information processing program”, “distributed ledger”, and “the cryptographic hash” when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. In addition, the claims recite the additional element non-transitory CRM”, “information processing program”, “distributed ledger”, and “the cryptographic hash” which is considered nothing more than a general link to technology because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12, and 14-15, recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claims 1, 6, and 11. The claims recite registering the certain data, registering the first identifier and second information that indicates an access location to the certain data, the certain data is transaction data related to a transaction between the certain organizations, and the certain data is transaction data related to a transaction between the certain organizations, and acquiring search target information. The claims are considered part of the abstract idea because the limitations recite steps for registering, identifying, and retrieving transaction data associated with transactions between organizations, which are integral to the overall process of managing and tracking transaction information rather than providing a specific technological improvement. The dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12, and 14-15 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 3, 8, and 13, recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1, 6, and 11. In addition, they recite the additional element of an “a distributed ledger”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US20200364817) in view of Nagai et al. (US20210374112), further in view of Nation et al. (US 20190370358).
Liu et al. is directed to a method to secure supply chain data in a blockchain that includes retrieving a unique identification code from a tag of a product and generating digital statuses of the product in the supply chain; creating a transaction record comprising a payload field storing the unique identification code and the digital statuses (See Abstract).
With regards to Claim 1, Liu et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program that causes at least one computer to execute a process, the process comprising (See Abstract & FIG 1):
acquiring first trail data to be registered in a traceability system, the first trail data including [confidential] transaction information; See [0024]- to collect and manage various supply chain data, including manufacturing data, transportation data, warehousing data and trading data, within a single system. Also See [0076]- FIG. 23 is a traceability interface of a manufacturer app in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. Also See [0185]- The authentic traceability information includes product thumbnail, product name, global unique code, current time/position, product detail information interface, number of times of authenticity, first time verification/position, first time of verification, manufacturer/distributor, commodity origin, production batch, expiration time, commodity temperature record, blockchain depth traceability, product traceability map, detailed node information. Also See [0219]- The user app 18 is adapted to trace the supply chain of a product with tags 12, and readers 14. The tag 12 can be a QR code tag, or RFID/NFC tag. The readers 14 are devices for reporting to an infrastructure 16 having a server 22 and associating with blockchain 24 in real-time.)
a first identifier that corresponds to the first trail data and first information including the [confidential] transaction information; (See [0025]- there is provided a method to integrate one or more distributed ledgers and databases and achieve secure, trusted and efficient supply chain management. Also See [0027] retrieving a unique identification code from a tag of a product and generating digital statuses of the product in the supply chain. Also See [0219]- The user app 18 is adapted to trace the supply chain of a product with tags 12, and readers 14. The tag 12 can be a QR code tag, or RFID/NFC tag. The readers 14 are devices for reporting to an infrastructure 16 having a server 22 and associating with blockchain 24 in real-time. Also See Also See [0013]- The processing unit 40 has separated buffer memory to store temporary data for processing. Also See [0093]- the RFID/NFC tags are initialized with an electronic product code (EPC) compatible with the system 10 of the present invention. In many cases this EPC can store information about the type of EPC, unique serial number of product, its specifications, manufacturer information, etc. EPC makes it easier for companies to classify and distinguish individual product by making it effective to link it to system 10 and access through the apps 18.)
registering, in a first distributed ledger to which all organizations of the traceability system refer, identifier (See [0028] -creating a transaction record comprising a payload field storing the unique identification code and the digital statuses. Also See [0185]- The authentic traceability information includes product thumbnail, product name, global unique code, current time/position, product detail information interface, number of times of authenticity, first time verification/position, first time of verification, manufacturer/distributor, commodity origin, production batch, expiration time, commodity temperature record, blockchain depth traceability, product traceability map, detailed node information. Also See [0265]- To retrieve full product information, the manufacture is required to register onto the UTMS. Upon completion of registration and an approval process, each unit under the manufacturer receives a unique product number. Through IoT and blockchain technology, UCOT encrypts the basic information of the goods in the blockchain and gives each product a key control point which clarifies the parties responsible for each link. Also See [0203]-there are four basic types of visibility of smart contract variables both internally and externally with relevant third parties. The public functions or variables that can be called internally or through messages/alarms. The private variables and functions are only available to the current contract and not derived contracts. The internal functions and variables that can only be accessed internally (current contract or derived). The external functions that can be called from other contracts and transactions. The information flow is from the readers 14 and all information the readers 14 collect to the blockchain 24 to the manufacturer app and then back out to the third parties either via the manufacturer app in third party supplier/distributor app or it is sent out as an external communication via the web server to the third parties email address/or sent via API to their own independent servers.)
the first identifier and a hash value of the first information registered in the second distributed ledger, and wherein the hash value registered in the first distributed ledger serves as a data integrity anchor for the first information, (See [0029] generating a hash of the transaction records and then encrypting the hash with a secured key. Also See [0117]- the reader 14 is adapted to format the data and timestamp into transaction records, authenticate the transaction records using hash functions or digital signature function, and then send the authenticated block directly to a private or public distributed ledger. Also See [0214]- The system 10 of the present invention can ensure data integrity as every piece of supply chain data is authenticated by the signature from manufacture to the consumer over the entire transaction. All supply chain data are then secured by blockchain 24, which is a decentralized, peer-to-peer (P2P) and hash-chained ledger and guarantees the integrity of the data recorded in it. The database is updated by trusted agents according to the supply chain data secured in the blockchain 24. As a result, the supply chain data in a database for storing data in the blockchain 24. Meanwhile, the database can be periodically verified to ensure that the database has not been tampered.).
Lui teaches a first identifier that correspond to first trail data and first information regarding transaction data included in the first trail data but does not teach registering, in a second distributed ledger selectively accessible only by a subset of the plurality of organizations, wherein the first distributed ledger and the second distributed ledger are structurally distinct ledgers, and the second distributed ledger.
Nagai et al. teaches:
registering, in a second distributed ledger selectively accessible only by a subset of the plurality of organizations (See [0022]- when the first distributed ledger system is migrated to another blockchain platform to build a second distributed ledger system, record, in a distributed ledger of the first distributed ledger system, correspondence between organizations participating in the first distributed ledger system and organizations participating in the second distributed ledger system, based on information on organizations that are allowed to participate in each distributed ledger system on the blockchain platform and the other blockchain platform, the information being held in the storage device. Also See [0173]- linking a blockchain included in the distributed ledger of the first distributed ledger system and a blockchain included in a distributed ledger of the second distributed ledger system based on the correspondence recorded in the distributed ledger of the first distributed ledger system. Also See [0107]-The distributed ledger node 2000 receives the TXs from the transaction distribution node 3000 and registers the TXs in the distributed ledger 2500 (step s204).)
wherein the first distributed ledger and the second distributed ledger are structurally distinct ledgers (See [0022]- when the first distributed ledger system is migrated to another blockchain platform to build a second distributed ledger system, record, in a distributed ledger of the first distributed ledger system, correspondence between organizations participating in the first distributed ledger system and organizations participating in the second distributed ledger system, based on information on organizations that are allowed to participate in each distributed ledger system on the blockchain platform and the other blockchain platform, the information being held in the storage device)
the second distributed ledger (See [0022]- organizations participating in the second distributed ledger system.)
Lui et al. and Nagai et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secure supply chain data in a blockchain and ledgers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lui et al. to further include registering, in a second distributed ledger selectively accessible only by a subset of the plurality of organizations, wherein the first distributed ledger and the second distributed ledger are structurally distinct ledgers, and the second distributed ledger as taught by Nagai et al. This is desirable such that it is possible to efficiently perform seamless migration of a distributed ledger and the like between BC platforms. (Nagai, [0025]]).
The Lui-Nagai combination teaches transaction information but does not teach confidential transaction information, thereby maintaining confidentiality of the first information within the subset of organizations, and enabling any organization from the plurality of organizations to computationally verify an integrity of the confidential transaction information without requiring access to or disclosure of the confidential transaction information stored in the [second] distributed ledger, thereby solving a technical problem specific to distributed ledger systems of simultaneously ensuring data integrity and confidentiality across multiple, non-trusting entities.
Nation et al. teaches:
confidential transaction information (See [0012]-a blockchain ledger can provide transparency for the underlying records or transactions represented by the ledger, for example from the genesis block (or transaction) to the most recent block (or transaction). Also See [0043]- In such an embodiment, although a database is used to store up-to-date access permissions for confidential data, blockchain 308 still maintains an immutable record and manages the execution of transactions for these access permissions.)
thereby maintaining confidentiality of the first information within the subset of organizations (See [0004]- The blockchain community can be a plurality of different organizations that share access to the confidential data store, and the update can be appended to a blockchain ledger that stores access permissions for the blockchain community. Also See [0015]- identities at each organization, such as individuals, can be granted access to various levels of the confidential information. For example, the confidential information can be stored in a database and keyed with varying security parameters (e.g., security classification level, title, project name, release, and the like). The access permissions for the identities of each organization can permit access to confidential information keyed with security parameters that correspond to the individual access permissions. Also See [0020]- Entity 102 and partners 104 and 106 can each have associated identities (e.g., individuals) with access permissions configured to access certain data from database 114 secured with certain security parameters. Also See [0064]- an application may be configured to interact with the database storing confidential information for the blockchain community (using one or more software services) in order to request access to portions of the confidential information.)
enabling any organization from the plurality of organizations to computationally verify an integrity of the confidential transaction information without requiring access to or disclosure of the confidential transaction information stored in the [second] distributed ledger (See [0012]-a blockchain ledger can provide transparency for the underlying records or transactions represented by the ledger, for example from the genesis block (or transaction) to the most recent block (or transaction). Also See [0043]- In such an embodiment, although a database is used to store up-to-date access permissions for confidential data, blockchain 308 still maintains an immutable record and manages the execution of transactions for these access permissions. ), thereby solving a technical problem specific to distributed ledger systems of simultaneously ensuring data integrity and confidentiality across multiple, non-trusting entities (See [0004]-An update to access permissions can be received from a first entity on behalf of a second entity, the update can change access permissions to a confidential data store. A smart contract that validates the update can be called. Upon consensus from a blockchain community, the update to the access permissions for the second entity can be executed. The blockchain community can be a plurality of different organizations that share access to the confidential data store, and the update can be appended to a blockchain ledger that stores access permissions for the blockchain community. Also See [0013]- secure access to confidential data using a blockchain ledger. A blockchain ledger can be a distributed electronic ledger that includes connected records, or blocks, secured using cryptographic functions. Implementations of a blockchain can be recursive, where each block in a ledger includes a cryptographic hash of the block preceding it. Also See [0015]- identities at each organization, such as individuals, can be granted access to various levels of the confidential information. For example, the confidential information can be stored in a database and keyed with varying security parameters (e.g., security classification level, title, project name, release, and the like). The access permissions for the identities of each organization can permit access to confidential information keyed with security parameters that correspond to the individual access permissions. Also See [0020]- entity 102 can be an organization that participates in a joint venture with partners 104 and 106, where each organization has access to varying levels of confidential information stored in database 114. Entity 102 and partners 104 and 106 can each have associated identities (e.g., individuals) with access permissions configured to access certain data from database 114 secured with certain security parameters. Also See [0063]- the database can have access to this private transaction, so either the database is given permission to view this private data or a private ledger can be generated for the subset, and the private ledger can be used when exposing access to their own systems (and those systems would connect to that private ledger). In these embodiments, with reference to auditing, the changes to the blockchain ledger are limited to the ledger(s) the parties/organizations can access.)
Lui et al., Nagai et al., and Nation et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secure supply chain data in a blockchain and ledgers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Lui-Nagai combination to further include confidential transaction information, thereby maintaining confidentiality of the first information within the subset of organizations, and enabling any organization from the plurality of organizations to computationally verify an integrity of the confidential transaction information without requiring access to or disclosure of the confidential transaction information stored in the [second] distributed ledger, thereby solving a technical problem specific to distributed ledger systems of simultaneously ensuring data integrity and confidentiality across multiple, non-trusting entities as taught by Nation et al. This is desirable such that it is allows for access permissions to be used to retrieve corresponding confidential information from the database, thus ensuring that up-to-date and transparent access permissions are used to retrieve only the confidential information that the identity is permitted to access. (See Nation, [0017])
In regards to Claim 6, is rejected on a similar basis to Claim 1, with the following additions:
Liu et al. teaches:
an information processing method for a computer to execute a process comprising: (See Abstract & Also See [0020]-[02023] )
In regards to Claim 11, is rejected on a similar basis to Claim 1, with the following additions:
Liu et al. teaches:
An information processing device comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more processors configured to: (See Abstract & [0130]- [0130] FIG. 8 shows a schematic diagram of a reader 114 of an embodiment of the present invention. The reader 114 comprises a power module 115, sensors 116, processor 117. Also See [0113]- [0113] The processing unit 40 may comprise a microprocessor adapted to run the firmware and software, static memories, and non-volatile memories adapted to store system operating code and data. The processing unit 40 has separated buffer memory to store temporary data for processing.)
In regards to Claim 2, 7, and 12, the Lui-Nagai-Nation combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim. Liu et al. further teaches:
wherein the registering the first identifier and the first information in the second memory includes: registering the certain data in a third memory (See [0027] retrieving a unique identification code from a tag of a product and generating digital statuses of the product in the supply chain. Also See [0219]- The user app 18 is adapted to trace the supply chain of a product with tags 12, and readers 14. The tag 12 can be a QR code tag, or RFID/NFC tag. The readers 14 are devices for reporting to an infrastructure 16 having a server 22 and associating with blockchain 24 in real-time. Also See Also See [0013]- The processing unit 40 has separated buffer memory to store temporary data for processing. Also See [0093]- the RFID/NFC tags are initialized with an electronic product code (EPC) compatible with the system 10 of the present invention. In many cases this EPC can store information about the type of EPC, unique serial number of product, its specifications, manufacturer information, etc. EPC makes it easier for companies to classify and distinguish individual product by making it effective to link it to system 10 and access through the apps 18.);
registering the first identifier and second information that indicates an access location to the certain data registered in the third memory, in the second memory (See [0027] retrieving a unique identification code from a tag of a product and generating digital statuses of the product in the supply chain. Also See [0118]-The unique ID will be processed on the mobile device and wait to be uploaded to the blockchain. The Send blockchain transaction function can be performed when the mobile devices have access to the Internet and send information such as the product location, product details and employee information or the authenticated code thereof to the blockchain through the Internet. From there the tracking information will be stored in the blockchain and can be displayed when needed. Also See [0249]- The report interface is also adapted to present geographic location where the user uses the user app 18 to verify the path of the products, as well as details of the user, the way to verify the source of the product, the number of times a product has been scanned, and the time at which it was scanned.).
In regards to Claim 3, 8, and 13, the Lui-Nagai-Nation combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim. Liu et al. further teaches:
wherein the second memory is referred to by the certain organizations via a distributed ledger for between the certain organizations (See [0006]- creating a second transaction record in the second distributed ledge representing an asset transfer. Also See [0093]- the RFID/NFC tags are initialized with an electronic product code (EPC) compatible with the system 10 of the present invention. In many cases this EPC can store information about the type of EPC, unique serial number of product, its specifications, manufacturer information, etc. EPC makes it easier for companies to classify and distinguish individual product by making it effective to link it to system 10 and access through the apps 18. Also See [0245]- The manufacturer may view the company's product traceability overview of the manufacturer dashboard interface as shown in FIG. 20. Also See [0048]- a system for recording supply chain information on a distributed ledger in a peer-to-peer network.).
In regards to Claim 4, 9, and 14, the Lui-Nagai-Nation combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim. Liu et al. further teaches:
wherein the certain data is transaction data related to a transaction between the certain organizations (See [0052]- one or more status related to the product to compile a transaction record and send the transaction record to the server for uploading the transaction record to the blockchain network. Also See [0029]- generating a hash of the transaction records and then encrypting the hash with a secured key. Also See [0164]- [0164] In the process of parsing transaction payload, the agent is adapted to invoke one or more subroutines to parse new transaction records. For every transaction record, the agent is adapted to first unpack the record, and extract the sender and payload from the record. The agent is adapted to check whether the transaction is a supply chain transaction by comparing the sender and payload with the loaded rules.).
In regards to Claim 5, 10, and 15, the Lui-Nagai-Nation combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim. Liu et al. further teaches:
acquiring search target information (See [0047]- compiling a tracking query of the product.);
searching for data registered in the second memory based on the search target information (See [0047]- compiling a tracking query of the product, sending the tracking query to a blockchain gateway, sending the tracking query to a blockchain gateway,);
acquiring an identifier related to data that corresponds to the search target information (See [0047]- compiling a tracking query of the product, sending the tracking query to a blockchain gateway, sending the tracking query to a blockchain gateway, receiving transaction records from the blockchain gateway.);
outputting the acquired identifier (See [0152]- blockchain querying and forwarding. Also See [0180]- The web server then creates API responses based on the querying result, including the structured supply chain data and blockchain indexes, and sends the responses to the application.).
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 112 (a) rejection are noted. Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments made Claims 1, 6, and 11 render the § 112(a) rejections moot. Examiner agrees. Examiner has reconsidered the previously rejected claims in light of the new amendments and accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 9 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the amended claims are directed to a specific, practical application that yields a tangible technical improvement to the functioning of computer-based distributed ledger systems, not merely an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amended claims merely recite the collection, registration, and verification of transaction related information using distributed ledgers and identifiers, which constitutes an abstract idea involving data organization and verification implemented on generic computer components. The additional recitations of distributed ledgers, identifiers, and hash values are recited at a high-level of generality and do not reflect a specific technological improvement to the functioning of the computer or distributed ledger system itself, but instead use known computing components to perform the abstract idea. Applicant further argues that the invention as claimed solves a technical problem unique to distributed computing environments: how to simultaneously guarantee data integrity for all participants while maintaining data confidentiality for a select subset of participants. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims merely recite storing, registering, and verifying information using distributed ledgers and hash values, which reflects generic data management and verification activities performed in a computing environment, rather than a specific technological solution that improves the functioning of distributed computing systems themselves. Applicant further argues that the claimed solution is a specific, non-generic architecture comprising: two structurally distinct distributed ledgers with different access permissions (one public, one selectively accessible) and a functional linkage between these ledgers where a "hash value" from the confidential ledger is registered in the public ledger to serve as a "data integrity anchor." Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited “two structurally distinct distributed ledgers” with different access permissions and the use of a hash value as a linkage between them merely represent the organization and verification of information using known distributed ledger and cryptographic techniques, which does not amount to a specific technological improvement to the functioning of the computer or distributed ledger system itself.
Applicant further argues that this architecture enables a new and concrete technical capability: it allows any organization to computationally verify the integrity of confidential information without requiring access to, or disclosure of, the confidential information itself. This process is not a longstanding commercial practice that can be performed with pen and paper. It is a specific technical improvement that enhances the system's security and efficiency, solving a technical problem rooted in computer technology. This represents a patent-eligible practical application that is significantly more than the abstract idea of organizing business interactions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claimed steps of registering identifiers and hash values across distributed ledgers to enable verification of information integrity merely recite the manipulation and verification of data using generic computing components and known cryptographic techniques, rather than a specific improvement to the operation of distributed ledger technology itself. The recited architecture of multiple ledgers with differing access permissions and the use of a hash as a linkage between them simply represents a logical arrangement of data and access control rather than a technological modification to how the underlying computer or distributed ledger system functions. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea implemented on generic computer components and do not integrate the exception into a practical application. Therefore, the amendment does not meaningfully transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. For the reasons mentioned above, the argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-15 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. On page 11 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that that the cited reference does not anticipate each and every feature of at least the independent claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner refers the applicant to the 103 rejections above, in which the claim elements are mapped to the newly cited prior art reference with respect to the claim amendments. Applicant asserts that Liu et al. fails to teach or suggest this core concept. Liu discloses a single blockchain system for supply chain management. While it uses a hash for integrity, it does so within a single- ledger context. Liu is concerned with securing data on one chain, not with the specific problem of partitioning confidential data onto a separate but verifiable ledger. Examiner does not find the applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Examiner notes that the newly applied reference teaches “enabling any organization from the plurality of organizations to computationally verify an integrity of the confidential transaction information without requiring access to or disclosure of the confidential transaction information stored in the [second] distributed ledger, thereby solving a technical problem specific to distributed ledger systems of simultaneously ensuring data integrity and confidentiality across multiple, non-trusting entities”. Therefore, when combined with the teachings of the original reference, the art reasonably suggests the claimed multi-ledger, cryptographically linked architecture. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the applicant has not explained how the amended claim limitations is distinguishable from the cited prior art of record and has instead merely asserted, without analysis, that the references do not teach the limitations. Therefore, without a specific explanation of why the prior art fails to discloses or suggest the amended features, the examiner must maintain the prior rejections. Examiner has reconsidered the claims in light of this prior art, and upon further review, has maintained the 35 USC 103 rejection. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-15 under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
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
extension fee 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 date of this final
action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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 on 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.
/A.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626