DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 1/30/26 wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently 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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 9 and 17 recite a method and a machine-readable storage medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a communication component that receives donor information over a period of time;
a recording component that records the donor information in a blockchain stored on a blockchain network as the donor information is received over the period of time, wherein each donor information entry is cryptographically signed, validated by a consensus protocol executed by a plurality of blockchain nodes, and committed to the blockchain as an immutable, time-stamped ledger state transition; and
an evaluation component that generates, by deterministic execution of a smart contract executed on the blockchain, an influence score for a donor as a function of donor information stored exclusively on the blockchain, wherein the smart contract is configured to:
(i) retrieve only donor information previously committed to the blockchain;
(ii) execute a deterministic scoring computation whose inputs, parameters, and execution logic are stored on-chain; and
(iii) update the blockchain by committing a new immutable ledger record representing the influence score,
wherein each generation or update of the influence score is performed as a validated ledger-state mutation and results in a new immutable record stored on the blockchain
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Additionally, the Specification indicates that the claims are directed to “tracking donor information” in order to “determine a potential impact of a donor.” Specification ¶1. This is an abstract idea in the form of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a memory, a processor, a communication component, a recording component, a blockchain stored on a blockchain network, an evaluation component, a smart contract executed on the blockchain (claim 1), a system comprising a processor, a blockchain stored on a blockchain network (claim 9), a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, and a blockchain stored on a blockchain network (claim 17). The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations reciting wherein each donor information entry is cryptographically signed, validated by a consensus protocol executed by a plurality of blockchain nodes, and committed to the blockchain as an immutable, time-stamped ledger state transition; deterministic execution of a smart contract executed on the blockchain; wherein the smart contract is configured to: (i) retrieve only donor information previously committed to the blockchain; (ii) execute a deterministic scoring computation whose inputs, parameters, and execution logic are stored on-chain; and (iii) update the blockchain by committing a new immutable ledger record representing the influence score, wherein each generation or update of the influence score is performed as a validated ledger-state mutation and results in a new immutable record stored on the blockchain (claim 1) and wherein recording comprises: cryptographically signing each donor information entry; validating each entry by execution of a consensus protocol by a plurality of blockchain nodes; and committing each validated entry as an immutable, time-stamped ledger state transition, and further comprising: executing, by the blockchain nodes, a deterministic smart contract . . . stored on the blockchain and commits the influence score as a new immutable ledger record (claims 9 and 17) provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (wherein each donor information entry is cryptographically signed, validated by a consensus protocol executed by a plurality of blockchain nodes, and committed to the blockchain as an immutable, time-stamped ledger state transition; deterministic execution of a smart contract executed on the blockchain; wherein the smart contract is configured to: (i) retrieve only donor information previously committed to the blockchain; (ii) execute a deterministic scoring computation whose inputs, parameters, and execution logic are stored on-chain; and (iii) update the blockchain by committing a new immutable ledger record representing the influence score, wherein each generation or update of the influence score is performed as a validated ledger-state mutation and results in a new immutable record stored on the blockchain (claim 1) and wherein recording comprises: cryptographically signing each donor information entry; validating each entry by execution of a consensus protocol by a plurality of blockchain nodes; and committing each validated entry as an immutable, time-stamped ledger state transition, and further comprising: executing, by the blockchain nodes, a deterministic smart contract . . . stored on the blockchain and commits the influence score as a new immutable ledger record (claims 9 and 17)). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the claimed steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 18-20 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1,10, and 17; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner has reviewed applicant’s disclosure and submits that these added limitations find no support in the specification as currently written, and is, therefore, directed to new matter.
Claim 6: “wherein the evaluation component determines the overall influence score of the donor by generating, via an on-chain smart contract, a deterministic curve-fitting or optimization function selected from a predefined set of mathematical models stored on the blockchain, the function being executed using donor data and calculation parameters recorded” is not described in the specification as written. Applicant did not cite any specific portion of the specification for support. However, Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, and did not find the cited limitation. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons. Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected as dependent on claim 6 or 14.
Claim 8: “wherein the evaluation component, via execution of the smart contract, compares donor information with social media information of a target organization, and upon detecting changes, generates an updated influence score and causes a new corresponding immutable blockchain record to be created, the contents of which are fully auditable by inspection of the blockchain." is not described in the specification as written. Applicant did not cite any specific portion of the specification for support. However, Examiner reviewed the entirety of the specification, especially [0036]-[0037], and did not find the cited limitation. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons.
The claims not specifically enumerated above are rejected as dependent upon one or more of the enumerated claims.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20230128945), in view of Woodward et al. (US 20150310507), and further in view of Frederick et al. (US 20190166133).
Referring to claim 1:
Khan discloses a system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory {Khan [0068][0290]-[0294]; an embodiment of the disclosure may be implemented using a set of software instructions that are designed to be executed by a suitably programmed processing element (such as a GPU, TPU, CPU, microprocessor, processor, controller, computing device, etc.) [0290] and Modules 202 are stored in a memory 220 [0294]}, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a communication component that receives [donor] information over a period of time, [wherein each donor information entry is cryptographically signed,] validated by a consensus protocol executed by a plurality of blockchain nodes, and committed to the blockchain as an immutable time-stamped ledger state transition {Khan [0013][0103][0175][0338][0424]; Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a time stamp [0013] and encourages engagement and tracks the value of a person's engagement using blockchain stored data and reputation scores [0103] and the protocol chooses validators to confirm blocks of transactions [0338] where the donor is interpreted as a user, and further, Khan does not explicitly teach a “donor” but this is addressed below and where the portion of the claim in brackets regarding cryptographically signing is not explicitly taught by Khan, but is included here for reference and is addressed below}; and
a recording component that records the [donor] information in a blockchain stored on a blockchain network as the [donor] information is received over the period of time {Khan [0043][0154][0175][0424]; User engagement and activity data is collected by the network and stored on a blockchain [0175] where the donor is interpreted as a user, and further, Khan does not explicitly teach a “donor” but this is addressed below}; and
an evaluation component that generates, by deterministic execution of [a smart contract executed on the blockchain], an influence score for a donor as a function of donor information stored [exclusively] on the blockchain {Khan [0102][0103][0111]-[0118][0225][0413][0498]; Reputationalism as referred to herein provides additional security and accountability. In some embodiments, its implementation may utilize an irrefutable database ledger on a blockchain in order derive a score connected to a user's identity [0115] and the disclosed platform utilizes a unique user identity and a Reputational score maintained on a blockchain ledger to define and save unique player attributes [0498] where deterministic execution is a fundamental property of blockchains and where the portion of the claim in brackets is not disclosed by Khan, but is addressed below}, wherein the [smart contract] is configured to: (iii) update the blockchain by committing a new immutable ledger record representing the influence score {Khan [0043][0498]; a Reputational score maintained on a blockchain ledger [0498]},
and
wherein each generation or update of the influence score is performed as a validated ledger-state mutation and results in a new immutable record stored on the blockchain {Khan [0102][0103][0111]-[0118][0225][0413] [0498]; Reputationalism as referred to herein provides additional security and accountability. In some embodiments, its implementation may utilize an irrefutable database ledger on a blockchain in order derive a score connected to a user's identity [0115] and the disclosed platform utilizes a unique user identity and a Reputational score maintained on a blockchain ledger to define and save unique player attributes [0498] where the score is maintained on the ledger and wherein a “validated ledger-state mutation” is involved in the process of updating the state of a ledger to include the score}.
Khan discloses a system for recording activities performed online, including interacting with social media, which may be used in the context of charity (abstract [0013] and [0155]). Khan does not explicitly disclose where the user is a donor.
However, Woodward is a similar system for gathering data regarding a fund-raising activity of one or more participants (abstract). Woodward discloses where the user is a donor {Woodward [0057]; the user evaluation logic 130 may cause the processor 108 of the host system 102 to evaluate, score, or rank users (e.g., charity event participants, charity event or campaign donors, or any other person or entity) [0057]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Khan to incorporate donors as taught by Woodward because this would provide a manner for evaluating donors who participate in charity events (Woodward [0057]), thus aiding the user by tracking donor participation.
Khan, as modified by Woodward, discloses a system for recording activities performed online using a blockchain, including interacting with social media, which may be used in the context of charity (abstract [0013] and [0155]). Khan, as modified by Woodward, does not disclose wherein each donor information entry is cryptographically signed; where the generating is by a smart contract executed on the blockchain; (i) retrieve only donor information previously committed to the blockchain; and (ii) execute a deterministic scoring computation whose inputs, parameters, and execution logic are stored on-chain.
However, Frederick discloses a similar system for data authentication and event execution using a blockchain (abstract). Frederick discloses wherein each donor information entry is cryptographically signed {Frederick [0005][0040][0059]; While the plurality of connections is established, the data authentication and event execution computing platform may receive first information from at least one of the plurality of social media service computing platforms. Subsequently, the data authentication and event execution computing platform may verify the authenticity of at least one aspect of the first information. Then the data authentication and event execution computing platform may generate a new block of a blockchain associated with a user at least by cryptographically encrypting the first information. Next, the data authentication and event execution computing platform may add the new block to the blockchain [0005] and Furthermore, “digital signature information” may refer to one or more private/public key pairs and digital signature algorithms which are used to digitally sign a message and/or network function request for the purposes of identity and/or authenticity verification [0040] and the new block may also be time-stamped at a time corresponding to the addition to blockchain 226 [0059]};
wherein the generating is by a smart contract executed on the blockchain {Frederick [0039][0062]; A smart contract operation, as used herein, may describe one or more operations performed by a “smart contract,” which may be one or more algorithms and/or programs associated with one or more nodes within a decentralized P2P network [0039]};
(i) retrieve only donor information previously committed to the blockchain {Frederick [0111]; Frederick platform 410 may be tasked with authentication of the user's financial transactions and once authenticated may add this data to the user's blockchain. This data may then be used to build a rating of the user [0111]}; and
(ii) execute a deterministic scoring computation whose inputs, parameters, and execution logic are stored on-chain {Frederick [0039][0062][0111]; A smart contract operation, as used herein, may describe one or more operations performed by a “smart contract,” which may be one or more algorithms and/or programs associated with one or more nodes within a decentralized P2P network [0039] where the use of a smart contract indicates that the parameters and execution logic are stored on-chain and platform 410 may be tasked with authentication of the user's financial transactions and once authenticated may add this data to the user's blockchain. This data may then be used to build a rating of the user [0111] indicates that at least the inputs regarding the user are stored on the blockchain}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Khan and Woodward to incorporate smart contracts as taught by Frederick because this would provide a manner for performing operations associated with a blockchain node (Frederick [0039]), thus aiding the user by performing desired calculations.
Referring to claim 2:
Khan, as modified by Woodward and Frederick, discloses wherein the donor information comprises social media data corresponding to a donor, and wherein the recording component records the social media data in the blockchain {Khan [0013][0108][0224][0420]; collect and store data related to user engagement activities 1414 (which as suggested by the figure may include engagement tables or records), and store user data on a blockchain 1416. Blockchain stored data 1416 may also be provided or created by gaming or social platforms 1418, which may generate data or provide access to subscribers, an NFT platform, and social media sites or networks [0420]}, and
wherein each record of social media data is digitally signed with a cryptographic key associated with the donor prior to storage on the blockchain {Frederick [0005][0040][0059]; While the plurality of connections is established, the data authentication and event execution computing platform may receive first information from at least one of the plurality of social media service computing platforms. Subsequently, the data authentication and event execution computing platform may verify the authenticity of at least one aspect of the first information. Then the data authentication and event execution computing platform may generate a new block of a blockchain associated with a user at least by cryptographically encrypting the first information. Next, the data authentication and event execution computing platform may add the new block to the blockchain [0005] and Furthermore, “digital signature information” may refer to one or more private/public key pairs and digital signature algorithms which are used to digitally sign a message and/or network function request for the purposes of identity and/or authenticity verification [0040]}.
Referring to claim 3:
Khan, as modified by Woodward and Frederick, discloses wherein the donor information comprises donor personal information corresponding to the donor, and wherein the recording component records the donor personal information in the blockchain {Khan [0022][0135]-[0139][0249]; utilize blockchain [0135] and Provides a mechanism that allows users to control their personal data, whether financial, health, career or hobby-related [0139]}, and
further wherein a hash value of any donor personal information stored off-chain is recorded on the blockchain, and the system processes donor personal information only if the hash matches the on-chain hash {Frederick [0090][0107][0111]; Either way, platform 410 may cryptographically encrypt the authenticated data (e.g., through a hashing process) and add the authenticated data to the user's blockchain so that the user's blockchain can serve as a verified source of immutable data [0111] and where “the system processes donor personal information only if the hash matches the on-chain hash” is not a positive limitation, includes optional limitations, and therefore, receives little patentable weight}.
Referring to claim 4:
Khan, as modified by Woodward and Frederick, discloses wherein the donor information comprises donation data corresponding to the donor {Woodward [0038]; The data may include behavioral data of event participants and supporters, social media sharing data, donation data [0038]}, and
wherein the recording component records the donation data in the blockchain as an immutable, time-stamped cryptographically-linked record {Khan [0043][0154][0175][0424]; User engagement and activity data is collected by the network and stored on a blockchain [0175] where the description of the data as “donation” data is non-functional descriptive data, does not affect the structure of the system, and therefore, receives little patentable weight}, and wherein each donor’s records are associated with a unique blockchain address derived from a public key of the donor {Khan [0156]; the disclosed engagement network may address security and privacy concerns through a key-based security process that is associated with a user's identity on the blockchain. In this example, the “key” is a cryptographic digital ID that is associated with a user's identity. As some (if not all) game and tele-metric data collection may be considered confidential, data access, transfer, and transfer of results should be stored in secure servers and tied to keys [0156]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Khan, as modified by Woodward and Frederick, discloses wherein the evaluation component, [as part of the smart contract executed on the blockchain], determines an overall influence score of the donor {Woodward [0057]; evaluate or score users such as charity event participants or supporters in one or more areas as described below. In some embodiments, the user evaluation logic 130 may cause the processor 108 of the host system 102 to evaluate, score, or rank users (e.g., charity event participants, charity event or campaign donors, or any other person or entity) in one, two, three, or more different areas, including one or more of: donations, engagement, and awareness . . . In some instances where multiple evaluation factors or areas are implemented, different factors or areas may be weighed differently or equally by the user evaluation logic 130. For example, assuming three areas are used by the user evaluation logic 130, the three areas can be weighted by the logic based on used specifications and/or by default to Area 1-34%, Area 2-33%, and Area 3-33% [0057]} by computing at least a social media score {Woodward [0057][0082]-[0084]; the user evaluation logic 130 may implement third party integration to calculate an engagement score for a user. For instance, the user evaluation logic 130 may use the following action and may weigh such actions as follows: [0083] and Social post with a photo—10 points. Social post without a photo—5 points. Replies, comments, retweets, or shares—2 points. Likes, favorites—1 point. Donation link clicks—10 points [0084]}, an independent engagement score {Woodward [0057][0058]; donations may be scored as a percent raised versus predetermined donation goals [0058]}, and an influence score {Woodward [0058][0064]; Awareness may be calculated using the user's reach across any social networks where the user has posted content, with each type or contact and interaction being weighted differently based on potential impact [0058]} from the donor information stored in the blockchain {Khan [0043][0154][0175][0424]; User engagement and activity data is collected by the network and stored on a blockchain [0175] where the donor is interpreted as a user, and further, Khan does not explicitly teach a “donor” but has been addressed in claim 1},
each calculated [on-chain] as a function of donor information stored in the blockchain, and wherein all parameters and weightings used for the calculation are stored and auditable on the blockchain, wherein the computation is executed deterministically by blockchain nodes as part of consensus validation {Khan [0102][0103] [0111]-[0118][0225][0413][0498]; Reputationalism as referred to herein provides additional security and accountability. In some embodiments, its implementation may utilize an irrefutable database ledger on a blockchain in order derive a score connected to a user's identity [0115] and the disclosed platform utilizes a unique user identity and a Reputational score maintained on a blockchain ledger to define and save unique player attributes [0498]}.
Khan, as modified by Woodward and Frederick, discloses the smart contract executed on the blockchain {Frederick [0039][0062]; A smart contract operation, as used herein, may describe one or more operations performed by a “smart contract,” which may be one or more algorithms and/or programs associated with one or more nodes within a decentralized P2P network [0039]};
Referring to claim 9:
Kahn discloses receiving, by the system, the [donor] information over a period of time {Khan [0013][0103][0175][0424]; encourages engagement and tracks the value of a person's engagement using blockchain stored data and reputation scores [0103] where the donor is interpreted as a user, and further, Khan does not explicitly teach a “donor” but this is addressed below }; and recording, by the system, the [donor] information in a blockchain stored on a blockchain network as the [donor] information is received over the period of time {Khan [0043][0154][0175][0424]; User engagement and activity data is collected by the network and stored on a blockchain [0175] where the donor is interpreted as a user, and further, Khan does not explicitly teach a “donor” but this is addressed below}, wherein recording comprises:
validating each entry by execution of a consensus protocol by a plurality of blockchain nodes; and committing each validated entry as an immutable time-stamped ledger state transition {Khan [0013][0103][0175][0338][0424]; Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a time stamp [0013] and encourages engagement and tracks the value of a person's engagement using blockchain stored data and reputation scores [0103] and the protocol chooses validators to confirm blocks of transactions [0338] where the donor is interpreted as a user, and further, Khan does not explicitly teach a “donor” but this is addressed below and where the portion of the claim in brackets regarding cryptographically signing is not explicitly taught by Khan, but is included here for reference and is addressed below}, and further comprising:
executing, by the blockchain nodes, [a deterministic a smart contract], that computes an influence score using [only] donor information and parameters stored on the blockchain and commits the influence score as a new immutable ledger record {Khan [0043][0102][0103][0111]-[0118][0225] [0413][0498]; Reputationalism as referred to herein provides additional security and accountability. In some embodiments, its implementation may utilize an irrefutable database ledger on a blockchain in order derive a score connected to a user's identity [0115] and the disclosed platform utilizes a unique user identity and a Reputational score maintained on a blockchain ledger to define and save unique player attributes [0498] where deterministic execution is a fundamental property of blockchains and where the portion of the claim in brackets is not disclosed by Khan, but is addressed below}.
Khan discloses a system for recording activities performed online, including interacting with social media, which may be used in the context of charity (abstract [0013] and [0155]). Khan does not explicitly disclose where the user is a donor.
However, Woodward is a similar system for gathering data regarding a fund-raising activity of one or more participants (abstract). Woodward discloses where the user is a donor {Woodward [0057]; the user evaluation logic 130 may cause the processor 108 of the host system 102 to evaluate, score, or rank users (e.g., charity event participants, charity event or campaign donors, or any other person or entity) [0057]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Khan to incorporate donors as taught by Woodward because this would provide a manner for evaluating donors who participate in charity events (Woodward [0057]), thus aiding the user by tracking donor participation.
Khan, as modified by Woodward, discloses a system for recording activities performed online using a blockchain, including interacting with social media, which may be used in the context of charity (abstract [0013] and [0155]). Khan, as modified by Woodward, does not disclose cryptographically signing each donor information entry; executing a deterministic smart contract that computes an influence score using only donor information and parameters stored on the blockchain.
However, Frederick discloses a similar system for data authentication and event execution using a blockchain (abstract). Frederick discloses cryptographically signing each donor information entry {Frederick [0005][0040][0059]; While the plurality of connections is established, the data authentication and event execution computing platform may receive first information from at least one of the plurality of social media service computing platforms. Subsequently, the data authentication and event execution computing platform may verify the authenticity of at least one aspect of the first information. Then the data authentication and event execution computing platform may generate a new block of a blockchain associated with a user at least by cryptographically encrypting the first information. Next, the data authentication and event execution computing platform may add the new block to the blockchain [0005] and Furthermore, “digital signature information” may refer to one or more private/public key pairs and digital signature algorithms which are used to digitally sign a message and/or network function request for the purposes of identity and/or authenticity verification [0040] and the new block may also be time-stamped at a time corresponding to the addition to blockchain 226 [0059]};
executing a deterministic smart contract that computes an influence score using only donor information and parameters stored on the blockchain {Frederick [0039][0062][0111]; A smart contract operation, as used herein, may describe one or more operations performed by a “smart contract,” which may be one or more algorithms and/or programs associated with one or more nodes within a decentralized P2P network [0039] where the use of a smart contract indicates that the parameters and execution logic are stored on-chain and platform 410 may be tasked with authentication of the user's financial transactions and once authenticated may add this data to the user's blockchain. This data may then be used to build a rating of the user [0111] indicates that at least the inputs regarding the user are stored on the blockchain};
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Khan and Woodward to incorporate smart contracts as taught by Frederick because this would provide a manner for performing operations associated with a blockchain node (Frederick [0039]), thus aiding the user by performing desired calculations.
Referring to claim 10:
Claim 10 is similar to claim 2 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 11:
Claim 11 is similar to claim 3 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 12:
Claim 12 is similar to claim 4 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 13:
Claim 13 is similar to claim 5 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 17:
Claim 17 is similar to claim 9 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 18:
Claim 18 is similar to claim 2 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is similar to claims 3 and 4 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 20:
Claim 20 is similar to claim 5 and is rejected on a similar basis, with the following addition:
Khan, as modified by Woodward and Frederick, discloses recording the overall influence score in the blockchain {Khan [0043][0154][0175][0424]; User engagement and activity data is collected by the network and stored on a blockchain [0175] where the Woodward, as is discussed in claim 5, provides the overall influence score}.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20230128945), in view of Woodward et al. (US 20150310507), in view of Frederick et al. (US 20190166133), and further in view of Opensenica et al. (US 20220058056).
Referring to claim 6:
Khan, as modified by Woodward and Frederick, discloses generating, via an on-chain smart contract, [a deterministic curve-fitting or optimization function selected from a predefined set of mathematical models stored on the blockchain], the function being executed using donor data and calculation parameters stored on the blockchain {Frederick [0039][0062]; A smart contract operation, as used herein, may describe one or more operations performed by a “smart contract,” which may be one or more algorithms and/or programs associated with one or more nodes within a decentralized P2P network [0039] where the portion of the claim in brackets is not taught by Frederick, but is addressed below},
Khan, as modified by Woodward and Frederick, discloses a system for recording activities performed online, including interacting with social media, which may be used in the context of charity (abstract [0013] and [0155]). Khan, as modified by Woodward and Frederick, does not disclose generating a deterministic curve-fitting or optimization function selected from a predefined set of mathematical models stored on the blockchain.
However, Opsenica discloses a related system for executing machine learning operations on data in the cloud (Opsenica abstract). Opsenica discloses generating a deterministic curve-fitting or optimization function selected from a predefined set of mathematical models stored on the blockchain {Opsenica [0074]; a learning model that is deemed to fulfil the state-specific optimization objective defined in the previous action, is selected from a set of predefined learning models [0074]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the score system disclosed in Khan, Woodward, and Frederick to generate functions as taught by Opsenica because this would provide a manner for fulfilling a defined optimization objective (Opsenica [0074]), thus aiding the user.
Referring to claim 7:
Khan, as modified by Woodward, Frederick, and Opsenica, discloses wherein the evaluation component, [via the smart contract], monitors both tangible and intangible donations corresponding to the donor {Woodward [0058][0064]-[0066]; donations may be scored as a percent raised versus predetermined donation goals [0058] where donations raised is a tangible donation and raising awareness, as described in [0064]-[0066] are considered intangible donations where the portion of the claim in brackets is not taught by Woodward, but is addressed below},
by generating a new immutable blockchain record for each detected donation or intangible action {Khan [0043][0154][0175][0424]; User engagement and activity data is collected by the network and stored on a blockchain [0175] where the donor is interpreted as a user, and further, Khan does not explicitly teach a “donor” but this is addressed below}
via a smart contract {Frederick [0039][0062]; A smart contract operation, as used herein, may describe one or more operations performed by a “smart contract,” which may be one or more algorithms and/or programs associated with one or more nodes within a decentralized P2P network [0039]}.
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is similar to claim 6 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is similar to claim 7 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20230128945), in view of Woodward et al. (US 20150310507), in view of Frederick et al. (US 20190166133), in view of Opensenica et al. (US 20220058056), and further in view of Lovell (US 20180075393).
Referring to claim 8:
Khan, as modified by Woodward, Frederick, and Opensenica, discloses where the user is a donor {Woodward [0057]; the user evaluation logic 130 may cause the processor 108 of the host system 102 to evaluate, score, or rank users (e.g., charity event participants, charity event or campaign donors, or any other person or entity) [0057]}, and
execution of the smart contract {Frederick [0039][0062]; A smart contract operation, as used herein, may describe one or more operations performed by a “smart contract,” which may be one or more algorithms and/or programs associated with one or more nodes within a decentralized P2P network [0039]}.
Khan, as modified by Woodward, Frederick, and Opensenica, discloses a system for recording activities performed online, including interacting with social media, which may be used in the context of charity (abstract [0013] and [0155]). Khan, as modified by Woodward, Frederick, and Opensenica, does not disclose wherein the evaluation component, compares donor information with social media information of a target organization, and upon detecting changes, generates an updated influence score and causes a new corresponding immutable blockchain record to be created, the contents of which are fully auditable by inspection of the blockchain.
However, Lovell discloses a similar system for tracking and validating social and environmental performance (abstract). Lovell discloses wherein the evaluation component, compares donor information with social media information of a target organization, and upon detecting changes, generates an updated influence score and causes a new corresponding immutable blockchain record to be created, the contents of which are fully auditable by inspection of the blockchain {Lovell [0122]-[0124][0148]; The processor 100 logs the user's participation with her total cumulative engagement (time), contributions and measured impact when the user finishes her Action their participation, and automatically adds to her impact resume (i.e., user's resume profile). In addition, the processor 100 populates and updates user's impact meters, top skills, causes and organization networks in real-time based on the user's actions as the user engages/participates in more actions [0122] and the processor 100 digitally tracks/documents/confirms/verifies independent skill development, i.e. extracurricular, outside of the workplace/classroom, community based development . . . By standardizing the assessment and verification process skill development across different user accounts, the processor 10 can equally compare and contrast the skills of different users [0124] and The processor 100 logs the user's participation with her total cumulative engagement (time), contributions and measured impact when the user finishes her Action their participation, and automatically adds to her impact resume (i.e., user's resume profile). In addition, the processor 100 populates and updates user's impact meters, top skills, causes and organization networks in real-time based on the user's actions as the user engages/participates in more actions [0125] and The system 10 continually updates the entire chain so that every ledger shows a real-time reflection of the user's achievements and recorded actions, giving each member the ability to measure and compare their impact and share their actions with other users and organizations [0148]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the score system disclosed in Khan, Woodward, Frederick, and Opensenica to incorporate updating the score and the blockchain as taught by Lovell because this would give members the ability to measure their impact and (Lovell [0148]), thus aiding the user by encouraging others to perform impactful actions as well.
Referring to claim 16:
Claim 16 is similar to claim 8 and is rejected on a similar basis.
Response to Arguments
I. Objection to claim 5
Withdrawn, in light of amendments.
II. Rejection under 112(a)
Some of the rejections were withdrawn, in light of the Specification and amendments. Applicant did not clearly address the rejection of claim 8 and claim 6 is newly rejected, based on the amendments. Examiner notes that it may be helpful for Applicant to cite specific support from the Specification when responding to rejections under 112(a).
III. Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to a judicial exception because they “do not recite a fundamental economic practice, a method of organizing human activity, or a mental process” but, rather, recite “a specific blockchain-based computing architecture.” Remarks 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though the claims may recite additional elements (the blockchain-based computing architecture), they are still directed to an abstract idea, as identified above. Further, the Specification indicates that the claims are directed to “tracking donor information” in order to “determine a potential impact of a donor.” Specification ¶1. This is an abstract idea in the form of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Applicant then argues that the claims are patent eligible because “they integrate any such idea into a practical application” and compares the claims to USPTO Example 38, arguing the claims provide an improvement to technology by “constraining execution, data access, validation, and state mutation in ways unique to distributed ledger systems.” Remarks 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees that merely applying the known concept of blockchain ledgers provides an improvement to technology similar to that provided in Example 38. Applicant has not pointed out any improvement to technology provided by the invention.
Applicant further argues that “an inventive concept may reside in the ordered combination of known elements even if the individual elements themselves were known” and alleges that “the inventive concept lies in a constraint-driven execution model that forces computation to occur deterministically, on-chain, and as part of consensus validation, producing auditable ledger mutations, functionality fundamentally different from generic data processing.” Remarks 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees that such an inventive concept provides an ordered combination which provides an inventive concept. Nor does Applicant explain how the ordered combination provides any inventive concept that is different than when considering the additional elements separately. Further, the claims appear to be merely a conventional use of known blockchain technology. No improvement to technology is identified. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. See MPEP 2106.05 (a). Here, the Specification has set forth the alleged improvement only in a conclusory manner and has not provided sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
IV. Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner notes that the motivation statements contain reasoning from the references themselves, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure. Therefore, the rejection is proper.
Applicant further argues that the prior art does not disclose performing the scoring computations on-chain as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Frederick discloses the use of smart contracts, which are executed on a blockchain. As such, the analytics performed by the smart contract are performed on chain.
While Applicant may argue that the on-chain calculations are “central to the claims” and alleges that this is not disclosed by the prior art, nowhere in the Specification is this emphasized. Nor are is the phrase “on-chain” found in the Specification. It is only not considered new matter because it is considered an inherent feature of smart contracts.
Applicant also argues that “the Office has not explained why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine” the prior art with the new limitations. Examiner has provided motivation statements throughout the rejection, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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. Te 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626