DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on March 4, 2026 for application 18196878
Acknowledgements
Claims 3 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 15-16, and 18-22 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 15-16, and 18-22 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the rejections be reconsidered in view of the present amendments to the claims.
After a careful review/reconsideration and discussion with SPE of the amended claims filed 03/04/2026 under 35 USC 101, Examiner asserts that the amended claims are still directed to an abstract idea of conducting a mapping of identifiers to invoke or obtain a contract. The present claim recites the limitations “obtaining an initial contract invocation request for executing a data processing task corresponding to a transaction service, the initial contract invocation request including a first contract identifier of a [target chain contract]; determining a second contract identifier of a target local contract based on the first contract identifier of the target chain contract and a mapping relationship…indicating an association between the first contract identifier and the second contract identifier; determining, according to the second contract identifier of the target local contract that is determined to be associated with the first contract identifier of the [target chain contract], a [target local contract]; invoking the [target local contract] for a first portion of the data processing task corresponding to a local service associated with the transaction service based on the second contract identifier to obtain a local transaction execution result based on local service data; and transmitting a target contract invocation request based on the local transaction execution result and the initial contract invocation request, the target contract invocation request including the first contract identifier and being configured to cause to execute the [target chain contract] independent of knowledge of the local service data, for a second portion of the data processing task corresponding to a consensus service associated with the transaction service based on the first contract identifier to obtain a chain transaction execution result of the data processing task, the chain transaction execution result being stored in a new block; reading local contract information associated with the invoked target local contract; obtaining one or more local contract functions from the local contract information, the one or more local contract functions including a pre-checking function configured to pre-check a request parameter in the initial contract invocation request based on the local service data; executing the one or more local contract functions that access the local service data for the local service; and applying the local service on the local service data to obtain the local transaction execution result” which still falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas still classified under “commercial or legal interactions”, specifically “business relations” as part of a transaction because the claims recite limitations for executing a local service associated with a transaction service by determining/invoking a target local contract based on establishing a mapping relationship between a first contract identifier and second contract identifier and eventually reading, querying via pre-checking parameters based on local service data. Also, the judicial exception is still not considered to be integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as processing circuitry at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, relationship mapping table, a consensus node in a core consensus network and a blockchain. The use of processing circuitry at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, relationship mapping table, a consensus node in a core consensus network and a blockchain 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. Also, the amended claims including the added limitations do not reflect an improvement to the electronic device at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, relationship mapping table and a consensus node in a core consensus network or the blockchain. Also the dependent claims are simply elaborating on the details regarding how the target local contract is determined or invoked such as based on a mapping of a first identifier and second identifier and executing pre-checking functions based on parameters and conditions. Lastly, the dependent claims recite additional elements such as “a blockchain network, routing network and a second user terminal”, 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. Hence, Examiner believes the claims are deemed appropriate to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 1-2, 4-8, 15-16, and 18-22 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 1-2 and 4-8 are directed to a method and claims 15-16, and 18-22 are directed to an apparatus. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite conducting a mapping of identifiers to invoke or obtain a contract which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “obtaining an initial contract invocation request for executing a data processing task corresponding to a transaction service, the initial contract invocation request including a first contract identifier of a [target chain contract]; determining a second contract identifier of a target local contract based on the first contract identifier of the target chain contract and a mapping relationship…indicating an association between the first contract identifier and the second contract identifier; determining, according to the second contract identifier of the target local contract that is determined to be associated with the first contract identifier of the [target chain contract], a [target local contract]; invoking the [target local contract] for a first portion of the data processing task corresponding to a local service associated with the transaction service based on the second contract identifier to obtain a local transaction execution result based on local service data; and transmitting a target contract invocation request based on the local transaction execution result and the initial contract invocation request, the target contract invocation request including the first contract identifier and being configured to cause to execute the [target chain contract] independent of knowledge of the local service data, for a second portion of the data processing task corresponding to a consensus service associated with the transaction service based on the first contract identifier to obtain a chain transaction execution result of the data processing task, the chain transaction execution result being stored in a new block; reading local contract information associated with the invoked target local contract; obtaining one or more local contract functions from the local contract information, the one or more local contract functions including a pre-checking function configured to pre-check a request parameter in the initial contract invocation request based on the local service data; executing the one or more local contract functions that access the local service data for the local service; and applying the local service on the local service data to obtain the local transaction execution result.” 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 (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for executing a local service associated with a transaction service by determining/invoking a target local contract based on a mapping relationship between a first contract identifier and second contract identifier. 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 processing circuitry at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, a consensus node in a core consensus network and a blockchain, 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 processing circuitry at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, relationship mapping table and a consensus node in a core consensus network 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 electronic device at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, relationship mapping table, a consensus node in a core consensus network and a blockchain perform the steps or functions of Claim 1. 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 electronic device at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, relationship mapping table, a consensus node in a core consensus network and a blockchain, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using processing circuitry at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, relationship mapping table, a consensus node in a core consensus network and a blockchain to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of conducting a mapping of identifiers to invoke or obtain a contract. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the system that includes electronic device at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, relationship mapping table, a consensus node in a core consensus network and a blockchain 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 conducting a mapping of identifiers to invoke or obtain a contract. 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 processing circuitry at a service node in a service network, target chain contract, target local contract, a consensus node in a core consensus network and a blockchain 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 how the target local contract is determined or invoked such as based on a mapping of a first identifier and second identifier and executing pre-checking functions based on parameters and conditions which describes the abstract idea of conducting a mapping of identifiers to invoke or obtain a contract. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “a blockchain network, routing network and a second user terminal”, 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
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