DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on July 1, 2026 for application 18188172
Acknowledgements
Claims 11-12 and 14 are canceled.
Claims 1-10, 13 and 15-20 are pending.
Claims 1-10, 13 and 15-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the features of amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as mathematical
concept, mental process, or a method for organizing human activity because the claim as a whole is inextricably tied to a specific technical system architecture and defines a concrete technological solution for secure data provisioning and runtime enforcement of data usage. Applicant argues that the features “verifying, using a machine learning (ML) model in the Maas network, whether the access request satisfies at least one of access rules for the dataset; validating the access request, based on the ownership information; sharing a private key separately with the
account of the data user; decrypting the encrypted copy of the dataset based
on the account of the data user and the private key; determining a consumption pattern of the served copy on the analytics system; determining, using the ML
model, a violation of one of the terms associated with the sale of the NFT, the
access rules for the dataset. or the terms associated with the usage of the
dataset, based on the consumption pattern; an attempt to resell the
dataset, or an attempt to transfer the dataset out of the analytics system; and lastly controlling, based on the determination of the violation, the system to block the access of the data user to the served copy of the dataset for one of a definite
time-period or an indefinite time-period" define a technological mechanism for secure transmission, monitoring, and control of data within a computing system,
including encryption-based data delivery, separate private key distribution, machine learning-based behavioral analysis, and dynamic system-level access restriction. Applicant argues that these features are not directed to a fundamental economic practice or a mere commercial interaction, but instead to technical operations performed by interconnected computing components to secure and control dataset usage. Lastly, Applicant discloses teaching of a method for secure transmission of datasets using encryption and distributed key management, for monitoring user's consumption pattern of the dataset usage within an analytics system, for detecting violations using a machine learning model based on consumption patterns, and for controlling system operation by blocking access in response to detected violations.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101 and after careful reconsideration/discussion of the claims with the Examiner’s SPE, Examiner respectfully disagrees as the features recited in the amended independent claim 1 of storing a dataset associated with a data owner; receiving, from an account of a data user, a purchase request for a [asset] that represents the dataset on a ledger; updating ownership information of the [asset] on the distributed ledger to include the data user based on whether the purchase request satisfies terms associated with a sale of the [asset]; receiving an access request for the dataset; verifying whether the access request satisfies terms associated with a usage of the dataset; auditing and tracking of consumption of the dataset associated with the [asset], wherein the auditing and the tracking of the consumption of the dataset are based on the verification of the access request that satisfies the terms associated with the usage of the dataset; verifying whether the access request satisfies at least one of access rules for the dataset; validating the access request based on the ownership information and whether the access request satisfies the at least one of the access rules for the dataset and the terms associated with the usage of the dataset; serving, based on the validation, an encrypted copy of the dataset; sharing a […] separately with the account of the data user; determining a consumption pattern of the served copy; controlling an access to the served copy of the dataset based on the consumption pattern; and determining a violation of one of the terms associated with the sale of the [asset]…; and controlling, based on the determination of the violation, the system to block the access of the data user to the served copy of the dataset for one of a definite time-period or an indefinite time-period" are still reciting an abstract idea of verifying ownership of a dataset and analyzing the dataset. Amended claim 1 falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” classified under “commercial or legal interactions”, specifically “business relations” as part of a transaction because the claims are reciting steps for sending and receiving data using various techniques to monitor consumption patterns and detecting violations based on those consumption patterns and hence controlling access in response to those detected violations. Specifically, the claims are all reciting abstract concepts such as facilitating selling or sharing of data with users under certain terms and conditions, verifying ownership and performing an analysis by validating, auditing, and tracking the consumption of the dataset associated with the asset. Also, the limitation “decrypting the encrypted copy of the dataset based on the account of the data user” is grouped within the “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” because a dataset is decrypted, verified using mathematical operations to manipulate data. Hence, overall the amended limitations of Claim 1 are still reciting an abstract concept verifying ownership of a dataset and analyzing the dataset. Also, the judicial exception is still not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as a storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a system that includes storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. As mentioned by the Applicant in the arguments, the interconnected computing components perform technical operations to secure and control dataset usage. As stated by the Applicant in reference to the Applicant’s Specification that amended independent claim 1 describes by which MaaS network audits and tracks the consumption of the dataset associated with the NFT and the ML model verifies whether the access request satisfies access rules for the dataset. Examiner does not agree that "providing the data provisioning framework to securely share the dataset such as travel data to limited participants who have the ownership of the NFT for the dataset" and "protecting rights on the usage of the dataset may prevent illegal copying of the datasets" represent an improvement to the technology. The ML model is simply an additional element being used to implement the analysis of the dataset by determining a violation. As again stated by the Applicant, the ML model 126 relies on computer-executable codes and routines to enable a computing system such as the MaaS network 112 to perform one or more operations such as a determination of whether there in violation of the terms associated with the sale of the NFT hence disclosing that the system that includes a storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model are utilized to implement the abstract idea. Hence, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claim does not recite improvements to the functioning of the system that includes a system that includes storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model. Lastly, Examiner concludes that the amended claims do not recite an improvement to the technology such as “the system that includes storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model”. They are simply being used as tools for secure transmission of datasets using encryption and distributed key management, for monitoring user's consumption pattern of the dataset usage within an analytics system, for detecting violations using a machine learning model based on consumption patterns, and for controlling system operation by blocking access in response to detected violations.
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 1-10, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-10 and 13 are directed to a method, claims 15-19 are directed to a system and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite verifying ownership of a dataset and analyzing the dataset which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “storing a dataset associated with a data owner; receiving, from an account of a data user, a purchase request for a [asset] that represents the dataset on a ledger; updating ownership information of the [asset] on the distributed ledger to include the data user based on whether the purchase request satisfies terms associated with a sale of the [asset]; receiving an access request for the dataset; verifying whether the access request satisfies terms associated with a usage of the dataset; auditing and tracking of consumption of the dataset associated with the [asset], wherein the auditing and the tracking of the consumption of the dataset are based on the verification of the access request that satisfies the terms associated with the usage of the dataset; verifying whether the access request satisfies at least one of access rules for the dataset; validating the access request based on the ownership information and whether the access request satisfies the at least one of the access rules for the dataset and the terms associated with the usage of the dataset; serving, based on the validation, an encrypted copy of the dataset; sharing a […] separately with the account of the data user; determining a consumption pattern of the served copy; controlling an access to the served copy of the dataset based on the consumption pattern; and determining a violation of one of the terms associated with the sale of the [asset]…; and controlling, based on the determination of the violation, the system to block the access of the data user to the served copy of the dataset for one of a definite time-period or an indefinite time-period.” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “commercial or legal interactions”, specifically “business relations” as part of a transaction. (2) Also, the limitation “decrypting the encrypted copy of the dataset based on the account of the data user” is grouped within the “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in the (1) first case, the claims involve a series of steps for facilitating selling or sharing of data with users under certain terms and conditions, verifying ownership and performing an analysis by validating, auditing, and tracking the consumption of the dataset associated with the asset and in the (2)second case, a dataset is decrypted, verified using mathematical operations to manipulate data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as a system that includes a storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a system that includes a storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the system that includes a storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model perform the steps or functions of “storing a dataset associated with a data owner; receiving, from an account of a data user, a purchase request for a [asset] that represents the dataset on a ledger; updating ownership information of the [asset] on the distributed ledger to include the data user based on whether the purchase request satisfies terms associated with a sale of the [asset]; receiving an access request for the dataset; verifying whether the access request satisfies terms associated with a usage of the dataset; auditing and tracking of consumption of the dataset associated with the [asset], wherein the auditing and the tracking of the consumption of the dataset are based on the verification of the access request that satisfies the terms associated with the usage of the dataset; verifying whether the access request satisfies at least one of access rules for the dataset; validating the access request based on the ownership information and whether the access request satisfies the at least one of the access rules for the dataset and the terms associated with the usage of the dataset; serving, based on the validation, an encrypted copy of the dataset; sharing a […] separately with the account of the data user; determining a consumption pattern of the served copy; controlling an access to the served copy of the dataset based on the consumption pattern; and determining a violation of one of the terms associated with the sale of the [asset]…; and controlling, based on the determination of the violation, the system to block the access of the data user to the served copy of the dataset for one of a definite time-period or an indefinite time-period”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of the system that includes a storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using system that includes a storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of verifying ownership of a dataset and analyzing the dataset. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the system that includes a storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of verifying ownership of a dataset and analyzing the dataset. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of the system that includes a storage device, Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) network, distributed ledger, a non-fungible token (NFT), a private key, an analytics system and a machine learning (ML) model to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe details regarding the types of datasets being received by the data owner, creation and listing of the assets and how the ownership is validated which describes the abstract idea of verifying ownership of a dataset and analyzing the dataset. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “a Mobility- as-a-Service (MaaS) network, a first smart contract on the distributed ledger or a second smart contract on a ledger node of the MaaS network, a private key and a machine learning (ML) model”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights