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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 02/27/2026.
Claims 1, 12 and 18 have been amended.
Claim 5 has been canceled.
Claim 17 was canceled.
Claim 22 has been added.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-22 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 101 rejection, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. In page 6, the Applicant asserted that “[in] the context of revised Step 2A Prong Two, in looking at the claim as a whole, exemplary considerations that would be indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application . . . ”. However, per the use of a master node as a management tool on other nodes in a blockchain network, the claim is similar to a centralized network of computers. The master node is nonetheless a mere tool invoked to apply the judicial exception. It does not improve the blockchain technology per se. Hence, the limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (blockchain framework) – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In step 2B analysis, the applicant argued that “an additional element or combination of elements adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present, or simply appends well-understood routine, conventional activities previously known in the industry . . . as indicated in Bascom Global Internet Services.” However, the Bascom rationale does not match the particular fact patterns of the instant claim. In Bascom, the claims describe a filtering system by providing customized filters at a remote server. Specifically, in Bascom an ISP server receives a request to access a website, associates the request with a particular user, and identifies the requested website. The filtering tool then applies the filtering mechanism associated with the particular user to the requested website to determine whether the user associated with that request is allowed access to the website. The filtering tool returns either the content of the website to the user, or a message to the user indicating that the request was denied. In Bascom another group of claims describe a hybrid filtering scheme implemented on the ISP server comprised of a master-inclusive list, an individual-customizable set of exclusive lists, and an individual-customizable set of inclusive lists. The focus of the claims in Bascom is on the specific asserted improvement in filtering technology by providing individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communication networks. Specifically, the claimed invention in Bascom achieves other benefits over conventional filtering by providing Internet-content filtering in a manner that can be customized for a person attempting to access such content while avoiding the need for (potentially millions of) local servers or computers to perform such filtering and while being less susceptible to circumvention by the user, and structuring a filtering scheme not just to be effective, but also to make user-level customization administrable as users are added instead of becoming intractably complex. Hence the Bascom claims are not directed to an abstract idea. On the other hand the Applicant’s claims do not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The invention in Bascom was a technological solution to a technological problem (using an improved filtering technology rather than using conventional filtering technology). Whereas the Applicants’ invention is a business solution to a problem rooted in an abstract idea. The arrangement of a computing system to maintain current values of the ledger, facilitating coordinated asset management, and obtaining endorsement of transaction through peer consensus via the use of data asset ledger, is an improvement in the business process of generating a damage estimate. It does not involve any improvements to another technology, technical field, or improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
Hence, the limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (blockchain framework) – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the arguments have been considered and they are persuasive. The Applicant asserted “none of the references disclose singly or in combination this particular mapping of functionality to layer and to entity. The amendment requires both the master data asset ledger and each peer node to comprise access, network, service, and data layers, with the service layer in the master data ledger enforcing authoritative governance and the service layer in each peer node implementing algorithmic consensus and endorsement . . . as blocks.” Furthermore, the claims have been sufficiently amended and none of the references, either individually or combination, establishes a prima facie case to disclose the claimed invention. Hence, the combination is not obvious. Therefore, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
A non-statutory double patenting is maintained between the instant application and co-pending 18/923,995.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-4, 6-16, 18-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application 18923995 (reference application). The claims are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to registering mobile devices for the use of mobile wallet account.
Current Application –18/170645
Copending Application 18/923995
1. (Currently Amended) A computing system, the computing system comprising: one or more processors in communication with a memory; and program instructions stored by the memory and executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: configuring a blockchain framework, the blockchain framework comprising: a master node that includes a master data asset ledger, the master data asset ledger providing a centralized control system that includes a controller that is configured to (a) issue instructions to a plurality of peer nodes through a hierarchy of entities, and (b) instruct next-lower-level components of the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for network interactions; and the plurality of peer nodes that are a decentralized control system that operate on local information and are equally responsible for contributing to provide consensus on data asset identities in accordance with cryptographic algorithmic trust control; wherein the master data asset ledger is configured to autonomously maintain current values of a set of ledger states, the master data asset ledger comprising object codes that overlay a coordination protocol of the plurality of peer nodes that includes the cryptographic algorithmic trust control, and wherein the plurality of peer nodes are collectively configured to maintain a copy of the object codes and each configured to store data asset records of respective decentralized applications; wherein the master data asset ledger and each peer node of the plurality of peer nodes each comprise a plurality of layers including (i) an identity management access layer configured to support identity-based access for inter-node and application interactions, the identity management access layer defining role-based access control policies and attribute-based access control time-based rules, the identity management access layer further maintaining an authentication, authorization, and accounting security framework that controls access to a distributed network of processing node resources, enforces policies, and audits usage, (ii) an availability management network layer configured to support availability-related inter-node communications, the availability management network layer incorporating authoritative flows facilitated via the master data asset ledger and algorithmic flows facilitated by the peer nodes for up-front validation and real-time verification, (iii) an asset management service layer configured to support asset-management functions, the service layer of the master data asset ledger further supporting authoritative trust control and the service layer of each peer node further supporting the cryptographic algorithmic trust control for consensus and endorsement, wherein execution of the services are defined and controlled through smart contracts comprising business rules collectively programmed to interoperate and support processing of master data management transactions in response to occurrence of one or more predetermined events, and (iv) a storage management data layer configured to support storage-management functions including maintaining the set of ledger states and the object codes as immutable blocks; wherein the master node: issues the instructions to the plurality of peer nodes through the hierarchy of entities; and instructs the next-lower-level components of the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for the network interactions; wherein the blockchain framework comprises two levels of trust control channel messaging including (a) a decentralized control system comprising some or all of a plurality of the peer nodes, wherein the system relies on distributed control depending on work of lower-level components operating on local information, wherein each component of the system is equally responsible for contributing to a system objective by acting in the appropriate manner according to algorithmic trust controls to achieve consensus, and (b) a centralized control system comprising some or all of the plurality of peer nodes comprising a controller configured to instruct components either directly or through a hierarchy of entities, the components being instructed to further instruct a respective next lower-level node according to authoritative trust controls, thereby providing supervision for network interactions between multiple nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to establish oversight for peer interactions and approval of endorsed transactions, thereby applying governance; and providing access to the blockchain framework to facilitate coordinated data asset management of the master data asset ledger and the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the coordination protocol, the coordinated data asset management comprising (i) obtaining endorsement of one or more transactions through peer consensus of the plurality of peer nodes, and (ii) instructing one or more peer nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to apply the cryptographic authoritative trust control maintained by the master data asset ledger, the cryptographic authoritative trust control being based on the endorsement of the one or more transactions.
2. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to facilitate maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes: passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; determining that the one or more data assets include a newly composed data asset that is distinct from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon validating content quality and verifying relational integrity of the newly composed data asset to confirm a new value; and providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledger that modifies a current value of the current values of the set of ledger states with the new value, the providing including removing the current value and validating entry of the new value.
3. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to facilitate maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes: passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; and determining that the one or more data assets are unchanged from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon dropping the one or more data assets to be entered without providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledger.
4. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to facilitate maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes active participation of the plurality of peer nodes to render one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger.
6. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable to define the coordination protocol with business rules indicating pattern, model and schema.
7. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the set of ledger states comprise records of decentralized applications.
8. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the object codes comprise smart contracts that are triggered by events and executed collectively by the plurality of peer nodes.
9. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the blockchain framework is further configured to be implemented across a multiparty business network incorporating decentralized applications.
10. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the endorsement of one or more transactions through peer consensus of the plurality of peer nodes comprises algorithmic trust control using a set of state transition events stored as blocks within the blockchain framework.
11. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the trust control comprises a centralized authoritative trust control.
12. A computing system, comprising: one or more processors in communication with a memory; and program instructions stored by the memory and executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: configuring a computing network comprising a blockchain framework, wherein the blockchain framework comprises: a master node that includes a master data asset ledger, the master data asset ledger providing a centralized control system that includes a controller that is configured to (a) issue instructions to a plurality of peer nodes through a hierarchy of entities, and (b) instruct instructs next-lower-level components of the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for network interactions; and the plurality of peer nodes configured to collectively execute a set of trust protocols to endorse disposition of a transaction in a master ledger that is configured to store data asset records of decentralized applications; wherein the master data asset ledger and each peer node of the plurality of peer nodes each comprise a plurality of layers including (i) an identity management access layer configured to support identity-based access for inter-node and application interactions, the identity management access layer defining role-based access control policies and attribute-based access control time-based rules, the identity management access layer further maintaining an authentication, authorization, and accounting security framework that controls access to a distributed network of processing node resources, enforces policies, and audits usage, (ii) an availability management network layer configured to support availability-related inter-node communications, the availability management network layer incorporating authoritative flows facilitated via the master data asset ledger and algorithmic flows facilitated by the peer nodes for up-front validation and real-time verification, (iii) an asset management service layer configured to support asset-management functions, the service layer of the master data asset ledger further supporting authoritative trust control and the service layer of each peer node further supporting the cryptographic algorithmic trust control for consensus and endorsement, wherein execution of the services are defined and controlled through smart contracts comprising business rules collectively programmed to interoperate and support processing of master data management transactions in response to occurrence of one or more predetermined events, and (iv) a storage management data layer configured to support storage-management functions including maintaining the set of ledger states and the object codes as immutable blocks; wherein the master node: issues the instructions to the plurality of peer nodes through the hierarchy of entities; and instructs the next-lower-level components of the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for the network interactions; wherein the blockchain framework comprises two levels of trust control channel messaging including (a) a decentralized control system comprising some or all of a plurality of the peer nodes, wherein the system relies on distributed control depending on work of lower-level components operating on local information, wherein each component of the system is equally responsible for contributing to a system objective by acting in the appropriate manner according to algorithmic trust controls to achieve consensus, and (b) a centralized control system comprising some or all of the plurality of peer nodes comprising a controller configured to instruct components either directly or through a hierarchy of entities, the components being instructed to further instruct a respective next lower-level node according to authoritative trust controls, thereby providing supervision for network interactions between multiple nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to establish oversight for peer interactions and approval of endorsed transactions, thereby applying governance; and providing, to one or more computing devices, access to the configured peer-to-peer computing network to facilitate coordinated data asset management via the blockchain framework.
13. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 12, wherein the computing network further comprises a plurality of decentralized multiparty applications that are interconnected via the plurality of peer nodes of the blockchain framework.
14. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 12, wherein the computing network further comprises a strategic master data platform for managing master data of the master ledger.
15. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 12, wherein the blockchain framework further comprises the master data ledger, and wherein the master ledger is further configured to store smart contracts comprising object codes, the smart contracts being executable by one or more nodes of the plurality of peer nodes.
16. (Currently Amended) The computing system according to claim 12, wherein the set of trust protocols comprise decentralized algorithmic system controls and centralized authoritative governance controls.
17. (Canceled).
18. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising: configuring a blockchain framework, the blockchain framework comprising: a master node that includes a master data asset ledger, the master data asset ledger providing a centralized control system that includes a controller that is configured to (a) issue instructions to a plurality of peer nodes through a hierarchy of entities, and (b) instruct next-lower-level components of the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for network interactions; and the plurality of peer nodes that are a decentralized control system that operate on local information and are equally responsible for contributing to provide consensus on data asset identities in accordance with cryptographic algorithmic trust control; wherein the master data asset ledger is configured to autonomously maintain current values of a set of ledger states, the master data asset ledger comprising object codes that overlay a coordination protocol of the plurality of peer nodes that includes the cryptographic algorithmic trust control, and wherein the plurality of peer nodes are collectively configured to maintain a copy of the object codes and each configured to store data asset records of respective decentralized applications; wherein the master data asset ledger and each peer node of the plurality of peer nodes each comprise a plurality of layers including (i) an identity management access layer configured to support identity-based access for inter-node and application interactions, the identity management access layer defining role-based access control policies and attribute-based access control time-based rules, the identity management access layer further maintaining an authentication, authorization, and accounting security framework that controls access to a distributed network of processing node resources, enforces policies, and audits usage, (ii) an availability management network layer configured to support availability-related inter-node communications, the availability management network layer incorporating authoritative flows facilitated via the master data asset ledger and algorithmic flows facilitated by the peer nodes for up-front validation and real-time verification, (iii) an asset management service layer configured to support asset-management functions, the service layer of the master data asset ledger further supporting authoritative trust control and the service layer of each peer node further supporting the cryptographic algorithmic trust control for consensus and endorsement, wherein execution of the services are defined and controlled through smart contracts comprising business rules collectively programmed to interoperate and support processing of master data management transactions in response to occurrence of one or more predetermined events, and (iv) a storage management data layer configured to support storage-management functions including maintaining the set of ledger states and the object codes as immutable blocks; wherein the master node: issues the instructions to the plurality of peer nodes through the hierarchy of entities; and instructs the next-lower-level components of the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for the network interactions; wherein the blockchain framework comprises two levels of trust control channel messaging including (a) a decentralized control system comprising some or all of a plurality of the peer nodes, wherein the system relies on distributed control depending on work of lower-level components operating on local information, wherein each component of the system is equally responsible for contributing to a system objective by acting in the appropriate manner according to algorithmic trust controls to achieve consensus, and (b) a centralized control system comprising some or all of the plurality of peer nodes comprising a controller configured to instruct components either directly or through a hierarchy of entities, the components being instructed to further instruct a respective next lower-level node according to authoritative trust controls, thereby providing supervision for network interactions between multiple nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to establish oversight for peer interactions and approval of endorsed transactions, thereby applying governance; and providing access to the blockchain framework to facilitate coordinated data asset management of the master data asset ledger and the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the coordination protocol, the coordinating comprising (i) obtaining endorsement of one or more transactions through peer consensus of the plurality of peer nodes, and (ii) instructing one or more peer nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to apply the cryptographic authoritative trust control maintained by the master data asset ledger, the cryptographic authoritative trust control being based on the endorsement of the one or more transactions.
19. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method according to The computer-implemented method according to, wherein the method further comprises: facilitating maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes: passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; determining that the one or more data assets include a newly composed data asset that is distinct from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon validating content quality and verifying relational integrity of the newly composed data asset to confirm a new value; and providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledger that modifies a current value of the current values of the set of ledger states with the new value, the providing including removing the current value and validating entry of the new value.
20. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method according to claim 18, wherein the method further comprises: facilitating maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes: passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; and determining that the one or more data assets are unchanged from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon dropping the one or more data assets to be entered without providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledger.
21. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method according to claim 18, wherein the method further comprises facilitating maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes active participation of the plurality of peer nodes to render one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger.
22. (New) The computer-implemented method according to claim 18, wherein the method further defines the coordination protocol with business rules indicating pattern, model and schema.
1. A computing system incorporating a network-based asymmetric key and digital signature verification protecting a cryptographic blockchain security framework configuration for enhanced security and trust control through node-based core operations and trust data management, the computing system comprising: one or more processors in communication with a memory; and program instructions stored by the memory and executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: configuring a blockchain framework, the blockchain framework comprising: a master data asset ledger; and a plurality of peer nodes; wherein the master data asset ledger is configured to autonomously maintain current values of a set of ledger states, the master data asset ledger comprising object codes that overlay a coordination protocol of the plurality of peer nodes, and wherein the plurality of peer nodes is collectively configured to maintain distributed ledger copies with a set of shared smart contracts applicable to one or more predetermined events to provide trust control across virtual services; providing, through each smart contract of the set of shared smart contracts, service level access to the blockchain framework to facilitate coordinated node-based core operations and trust data asset management of the master data asset ledger and the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the coordination protocol, the coordinated node-based core operations and trust data asset management comprising (i) obtaining endorsement of one or more transactions through peer consensus of the plurality of peer nodes, and (ii) instructing one or more peer nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to apply a trust control maintained by the master data asset ledger, the trust control being based on the endorsement of the one or more transactions.
2. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to facilitate maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes: passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; determining that the one or more data assets include a newly composed data asset that is distinct from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon validating content quality and verifying relational integrity of the newly composed data asset to confirm a new value; and providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledger that modifies a current value of the current values of the set of ledger states with the new value, the providing including removing the current value and validating entry of the new value.
3. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to facilitate maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes: passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; and determining that the one or more data assets are unchanged from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon dropping the one or more data assets to be entered without providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledger.
4. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to facilitate maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes active participation of the plurality of peer nodes to render one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger.
5. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the master data asset ledger and the plurality of peer nodes each comprise a plurality of layers, wherein the plurality of layers is selected from the group consisting of an access layer, a network layer, a service layer, and a data layer.
6. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable to define the coordination protocol with business rules indicating pattern, model and schema.
7. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the set of ledger states comprise records of decentralized applications.
8. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the object codes comprise smart contracts that are triggered by events and executed collectively by the plurality of peer nodes.
9. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the blockchain framework is further configured to be implemented across a multiparty business network incorporating decentralized applications.
10. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the endorsement of one or more transactions through peer consensus of the plurality of peer nodes comprises algorithmic trust control using a set of state transition events stored as blocks within the blockchain framework.
11. The computing system according to claim 1, wherein the trust control comprises a centralized authoritative trust control.
12. A computing system incorporating blockchain framework configuration for trust control for node-based core operations and trust data asset management, the computing system comprising: one or more processors in communication with a memory; and program instructions stored by the memory and executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: configuring a computing network comprising a partially decentralized blockchain framework, wherein the blockchain framework comprises a plurality of peer nodes configured with dedicated services to collectively execute a set of trust protocols to endorse disposition of a transaction in a centrally maintained master ledger that is configured to store data asset records of decentralized applications; and providing, through each network node, service level access to one or more computing devices, the access connecting the one or more computing devices to the configured peer-to-peer computing network to facilitate coordinated node-based core operations and trust data asset management via federated nodes of the blockchain framework.
13. The computing system according to claim 12, wherein the computing network further comprises a plurality of decentralized multiparty applications that are interconnected via the plurality of peer nodes of the blockchain framework.
14. The computing system according to claim 12, wherein the computing network further comprises a strategic master data platform for managing master data of the master ledger.
15. The computing system according to claim 12, wherein the blockchain framework further comprises the master data ledger, and wherein the master ledger is further configured to store smart contracts comprising object codes, the smart contracts being executable by one or more nodes of the plurality of peer nodes.
16. The computing system according to claim 12, wherein the set of trust protocols comprise decentralized algorithmic system controls and centralized authoritative governance controls.
17. The computing system according to claim 16, wherein the centralized authoritative governance controls rely on a controller to instruct lower-level nodes within the blockchain framework.
18. A computer-implemented method for data processing to at least partially populate a digital data submission form, the method comprising: configuring a blockchain framework, the blockchain framework comprising: a master data asset ledger; and a plurality of peer nodes; wherein the master data asset ledger is configured to autonomously maintain current values of a set of ledger states, the master data asset ledger comprising object codes that overlay a coordination protocol of the plurality of peer nodes, and wherein the plurality of peer nodes is collectively configured to maintain distributed ledger copies with a set of shared smart contracts appliable to one or more predetermined events to provide trust control across virtual services; providing, through each smart contract of the set of shared smart contracts, service level access to the blockchain framework to facilitate coordinated node-based core operations and trust data asset management of the master data asset ledger and the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the coordination protocol, the coordinated node-based core operations and trust data asset management comprising (i) obtaining endorsement of one or more transactions through peer consensus of the plurality of peer nodes, and (ii) instructing one or more peer nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to apply a trust control maintained by the master data asset ledger, the trust control being based on the endorsement of the one or more transactions.
19. The computer-implemented method according to claim 17, wherein the method further comprises: facilitating maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes: passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; determining that the one or more data assets include a newly composed data asset that is distinct from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon validating content quality and verifying relational integrity of the newly composed data asset to confirm a new value; and providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledger that modifies a current value of the current values of the set of ledger states with the new value, the providing including removing the current value and validating entry of the new value.
20. The computer-implemented method according to claim 18, wherein the method further comprises: facilitating maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes: passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; and determining that the one or more data assets are unchanged from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon dropping the one or more data assets to be entered without providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledger.
Both the present application and the co-pending application teach encrypting data security for a blockchain network to validate data asset. The claims are similar in scope with only minor variations.
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 1-4, 6-16, 18-22 are directed to a system, a method, which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 18 are grouped together. Claim 1, for instance, recites, in part, A computing system, the computing system comprising: one or more processors in communication with a memory; and program instructions stored by the memory and executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: configuring a blockchain framework, the blockchain framework comprising: a master node that includes a master data asset ledger, the master data asset ledger providing a centralized control system that includes a controller that is configured to (a) issue instructions to a plurality of peer nodes through a hierarchy of entities, and (B) instruct next-lower-level components of a plurality of peer nodes in accordance with cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for network interactions; and the plurality of peer nodes that are a decentralized control system that operate on local information and are equally responsible for contributing to provide consensus on data asset identities in accordance with cryptographic algorithmic trust control; wherein the master data asset ledger is configured to autonomously maintain current values of a set of ledger states, the master data asset ledger comprising object codes that overlay a coordination protocol of the plurality of peer nodes that includes the cryptographic algorithmic trust control, and wherein the plurality of peer nodes are collectively configured to maintain a copy of the object codes and each configured to store data asset records of respective decentralized applications; wherein the master data asset ledger and each peer node of the plurality of peer nodes each comprise a plurality of layers including (i) an identity management access layer configured to support identity-based access for inter-node and application interactions, the identity management access layer defining role-based access control policies and attribute-based access control time-based rules, the identity management access layer further maintaining an authentication, authorization, and accounting security framework that controls access to a distributed network of processing node resources, enforces policies, and audits usage, (ii) an availability management network layer configured to support availability-related inter-node communications, the availability management network layer incorporating authoritative flows facilitated via the master data asset ledger and algorithmic flows facilitated by the peer nodes for up-front validation and real-time verification, (iii) an asset management service layer configured to support asset-management functions, the service layer of the master data asset ledger further supporting authoritative trust control and the service layer of each peer node further supporting the cryptographic algorithmic trust control for consensus and endorsement, wherein execution of the services are defined and controlled through smart contracts comprising business rules collectively programmed to interoperate and support processing of master data management transactions in response to occurrence of one or more predetermined events, and (iv) a storage management data layer configured to support storage-management functions including maintaining the set of ledger states and the object codes as immutable blocks; wherein the master node: issues the instructions to the plurality of peer nodes through the hierarchy of entities; and instructs the next-lower-level components of the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for the network interactions; wherein the blockchain framework comprises two levels of trust control channel messaging including (a) a decentralized control system comprising some or all of a plurality of the peer nodes, wherein the system relies on distributed control depending on work of lower-level components operating on local information, wherein each component of the system is equally responsible for contributing to a system objective by acting in the appropriate manner according to algorithmic trust controls to achieve consensus, and (b) a centralized control system comprising some or all of the plurality of peer nodes comprising a controller configured to instruct components either directly or through a hierarchy of entities, the components being instructed to further instruct a respective next lower-level node according to authoritative trust controls, thereby providing supervision for network interactions between multiple nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to establish oversight for peer interactions and approval of endorsed transactions, thereby applying governance; and providing access to the blockchain framework to facilitate coordinated data asset management of the master data asset ledger and the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the coordination protocol, the coordinated data asset management comprising (i) obtaining endorsement of one or more transactions through peer consensus of the plurality of peer nodes, and (ii) instructing one or more peer nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to apply [a]] the cryptographic authoritative trust control maintained by the master data asset ledger, the cryptographic authoritative trust control being based on the endorsement of the one or more transactions. Such concept is directed to commercial interactions (master data management). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 is rejected as follows: Claim 12, for instance, recites, in part, A computing system, the computing system comprising: one or more processors in communication with a memory; and program instructions stored by the memory and executable by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: configuring a blockchain framework, the blockchain framework comprising: a master node that includes a master data asset ledger, the master data asset ledger providing a centralized control system that includes a controller is configured to (a) issue instructions to a plurality of peer nodes through a hierarchy of entities, and (B) instruct next-lower-level components of a plurality of peer nodes in accordance with cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for network interactions; and the plurality of peer nodes configured to collectively execute a set of trust protocols to endorse disposition of a transaction in a master ledger that is configured to store data asset records of decentralized applications; wherein the master data asset ledger and each peer node of the plurality of peer nodes each comprise a plurality of layers including (i) an identity management access layer configured to support identity-based access for inter-node and application interactions, the identity management access layer defining role-based access control policies and attribute-based access control time-based rules, the identity management access layer further maintaining an authentication, authorization, and accounting security framework that controls access to a distributed network of processing node resources, enforces policies, and audits usage, (ii) an availability management network layer configured to support availability-related inter-node communications, the availability management network layer incorporating authoritative flows facilitated via the master data asset ledger and algorithmic flows facilitated by the peer nodes for up-front validation and real-time verification, (iii) an asset management service layer configured to support asset-management functions, the service layer of the master data asset ledger further supporting authoritative trust control and the service layer of each peer node further supporting the cryptographic algorithmic trust control for consensus and endorsement, wherein execution of the services are defined and controlled through smart contracts comprising business rules collectively programmed to interoperate and support processing of master data management transactions in response to occurrence of one or more predetermined events, and (iv) a storage management data layer configured to support storage-management functions including maintaining the set of ledger states and the object codes as immutable blocks; wherein the master node: issues the instructions to the plurality of peer nodes through the hierarchy of entities; and instructs the next-lower-level components of the plurality of peer nodes in accordance with the cryptographic authoritative trust control to provide governance for the network interactions; wherein the blockchain framework comprises two levels of trust control channel messaging including (a) a decentralized control system comprising some or all of a plurality of the peer nodes, wherein the system relies on distributed control depending on work of lower-level components operating on local information, wherein each component of the system is equally responsible for contributing to a system objective by acting in the appropriate manner according to algorithmic trust controls to achieve consensus, and (b) a centralized control system comprising some or all of the plurality of peer nodes comprising a controller configured to instruct components either directly or through a hierarchy of entities, the components being instructed to further instruct a respective next lower-level node according to authoritative trust controls, thereby providing supervision for network interactions between multiple nodes of the plurality of peer nodes to establish oversight for peer interactions and approval of endorsed transactions, thereby applying governance; and providing, to one or more computing devices, access to the configured peer-to-peer computing network to facilitate coordinated data asset management via the blockchain framework. Such concept of facilitating endorsement of one or more transaction [using a blockchain framework] is directed to commercial interactions (master data management). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as at least a memory, a master node, a master data asset ledger, processor, electronic devices, processor, blockchain framework, a decentralized control system, a cryptographic algorithmic trust control, peer nodes, data asset records, decentralized applications, components, authoritative trust control, and other generic computer components to perform the claim limitation steps. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (configuring, providing) 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. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are merely additional elements performing the abstract idea on a generic device i.e., abstract idea and apply it. There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). In addition, the disclosure does not discuss in details how the step is technologically performed. The steps are performed, e.g. by a processor or ML without disclosing any algorithm or training process. Hence, there was no technological cited in the limitations. Lastly, there was no ordered combination of additional element results in a improvement like that of BASCOM. Furthermore, the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they are merely adding the words “apply it” to a judicial exception on a generic computing device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device : configuring a computing network comprising a blockchain framework, wherein the blockchain framework comprises a plurality of peer nodes configured to collectively execute a set of trust protocols to endorse disposition of a transaction in a master ledger that is configured to store data asset records of decentralized applications; and providing, to one or more computing devices, access to the configured peer-to-peer computing network to facilitate coordinated data asset management via the blockchain framework. is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 and 19 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. The claim(s) recite(s) additional element of passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; determining that the one or more data assets include a newly composed data asset that is distinct from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon validating content quality and verifying relational integrity of the newly composed data asset to confirm a new value; and providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledger that modifies a current value of the current values of the set of ledger states with the new value, the providing including removing the current value and validating entry of the new value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as one or more processors, a master data asset ledger, a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 3 and 19 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. The claim(s) recite(s) additional element of passive rendering of one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger; assessing any changes to the current values of the set of ledger states; and determining that the one or more data assets are unchanged from the current values of the set of ledger states and based thereon dropping the one or more data assets to be entered without providing a new data asset entry to the master data asset ledge. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, one or more processors, a master data asset ledger) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 4 is 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. The claim(s) recite(s) the additional element of facilitating maintenance of the master data asset ledger, wherein the maintenance includes active participation of the plurality of peer nodes to render one or more data assets to be entered to the master data asset ledger. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, , one or more processors, a master data asset ledger, peer nodes) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 6 is 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. The claim recites additional element such as wherein the program instructions are further executable to define the coordination protocol with business rules indicating pattern, model and schema, which merely further describes the abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 7 is 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. The claim(s) recite(s) additional element of the set of ledger states comprise records of decentralized applications. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, decentralized applications) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 8 is 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. The claim recites the additional element of wherein the object codes comprise smart contracts that are triggered by events and executed collectively by the plurality of peer nodes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, smart contracts, peer nodes) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 9 is 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. The claim recites the additional element of implemented across a multiparty business network incorporating decentralized applications. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, a multiparty business network, decentralized applications that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 10 is 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. The claim recites the additional element of the endorsement of one or more transactions through peer consensus of the plurality of peer nodes comprises algorithmic trust control using a set of state transition events stored as blocks within the blockchain framework. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, peer nodes, decentralized applications) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 11 is 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. The claim recites the additional element of the trust control comprises a centralized authoritative trust control. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are A Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, a master data asset ledger, peer nodes, a centralized authoritative trust control) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 13 is 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. The claim recites the additional element of wherein the computing network further comprises a plurality of decentralized multiparty applications that are interconnected via the plurality of peer nodes of the blockchain framework. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, decentralized multiparty applications, peer nodes, a blockchain framework) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 14 is 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. The claim recites the additional element of data processing to at least partially populate a digital data submission form according to claim 12, wherein the computing network further comprises a strategic master data platform for managing master data of the master ledger. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, a master data asset ledger, peer nodes) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 15 is 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. The claim recites the additional element of the master data ledger, and wherein the master ledger is further configured to store smart contracts comprising object codes, the smart contracts being executable by one or more nodes of the plurality of peer nodes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, a blockchain framework, a master data ledger, smart contracts, peer nodes) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 16 is 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. The claim recites the additional element of the set of trust protocols comprise decentralized algorithmic system controls and centralized authoritative governance controls. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, a decentralized algorithmic system control, a centralized authoritative governance) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 21 is 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. The claim recites facilitating maintenance of the master data asset ledger. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, a decentralized algorithmic system control, a centralized authoritative governance) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 22 is 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. The claim recites facilitating maintenance of the master data asset ledger. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements (such as a computing system, a decentralized algorithmic system control, a centralized authoritative governance) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-22 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Citations
Shi et al. (US 2020/0151167 A1)
Volkerink et al. (US 2022/0095079 A1)
Ortiz et al. (US 2018/0293573 A1)
Haque et al. (US 2020/0218815 A1)
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 TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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, Mike W. Anderson, can be reached on (571) 270-0508. 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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights