CTNF 18/205,069 CTNF 93227 DETAILED ACTION The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on January 22, 2026 for application 18205069 Acknowledgements Claims 18-19 have been added. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments In response to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that since the presently claimed invention recites the feature of “only execut[ing] the first smart contract when (i) the obtained data of the user is detected as being correct and (ii) the first challenge content is detected to have been achieved based on the obtained data of the user”, and does not execute the first smart contract when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect improves the performance of the distributed ledger system by reducing the number of transactions that enter the distributed ledger and the size of the distributed ledger, that is, resources required for management of the distributed ledger are minimized as a result of restricting recordation of user that is detected as being correct. Also, Applicant argues that dependent claim 18 has been added because it recites that the claimed structure of the third transaction data allows for the data distribution system of the presently claimed invention to eliminate the requirement of including user data in the third transaction data such that the data stored in the distributed ledger only contains information such as an address, a challenge identifier, a data type, and a hash value. Accordingly, the amount of data recorded in the distributed ledger is reduced as a result of the user data being not recorded into the distributed ledger, while still making it possible to later confirm, by comparison with the hash value, that the data has not been tampered with. Examiner respectfully disagrees as based on the amended limitations, claim 1 is still reciting an abstract idea of determining whether to provide an incentive upon completion of a challenge. The limitations “obtaining challenge content in which an incentive is provided to a user when the user achieves a goal which can be determined based on data of the user and which the user is challenging; recording first transaction data to be capable of executing provision of the incentive to the user when the goal indicated by the challenge content generated is achieved; notifying the user of the challenge content; obtaining second transaction data including first challenge content selected by the user to be registered from among the challenge content and recording the second transaction data in the [database]; obtaining the data of the user; detecting whether the obtained data of the user is correct; when (i) the obtained data of the user is detected as being correct and (ii) the first challenge content is detected to have been achieved based on the obtained data of the user; generating third transaction data including information indicating the obtained data of the user; transmitting the third transaction data and recording the third transaction data; and when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect, performing control to not the first contract by causing to not generate the third transaction data and not transmit the third transaction data which does not record the third transaction data in the ledger when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect” still fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas classified under “commercial or legal interactions”, specifically “business relations” as part of a transaction because the claim limitations are facilitating the provision of an incentive upon determination of whether a goal or challenge with which the user can automatically be provided an incentive is achieved based on data obtained from the user. Also, the judicial exception is still not being integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as a data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, a detection server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract 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 data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract to implement the abstract idea 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. The technology is simply used to execute a determination of a challenge being completed via a first smart contract, hence, there is no improvement to the data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, a detection server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract. In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. 112, Applicant argues that that from paragraph [0036] of US 2023/0306417 and Fig. 13A, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that recording the third transaction data in the distributed ledger servers as a trigger to execute the first smart contract. Applicant argues the steps S301-S306 of Fig. 13A describe where the data is detected as incorrect data in step S305, the specification of the instant application teaches that a notification is transmitted to the terminal 110 in step S306 and processing does not proceed to generation of the fourth transaction data and storage of the fourth transaction data in the distributed ledger of the authentication server will not be proceeded. In response the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 112 and after a reconsideration/review of the Applicant’s specification, Examiner respectfully disagrees as Claims 1, 10 and 11 are clearly reciting a negative limitation “when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect, performing control to not execute the first smart contract by causing the detection server to not generate the third transaction data and not transmit the third transaction data to the first authentication server, which does not record the third transaction data in the distributed ledger when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect”. MPEP 2173.05(i) describes any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Applicant’s specification discloses how data manager 311 may record data detected by detector 312 as incorrect data, to which information indicating that the data is incorrect data is added (see ¶0143 ) and also when detector 312 detects that the data obtained from a device such as terminal 110 is not incorrect data, that data is transmitted to data manager 311 and recorded in storage 314 (see ¶0161 ). The Specification only discloses data being recorded once it is determined as being incorrect. In response to the applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Tanimoto fails to teach "when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect, performing control to not execute the first smart contract by causing the detection server to not generate the third transaction data and not transmit the third transaction data to the first authentication server, which does not record the third transaction data in the distributed ledger when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect," as required by the above-noted features of claim 1. Applicant further argues that "incorrect data" of the present application refers to "tampered, falsified, or unreliable data," whereas Tanimoto's "unsuccessful" means "a result of not achieving the goal despite being based on correct data," and as such, the two concepts are fundamentally different. In response to the applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Examiner respectfully disagrees as after a careful review of prior art, Tanimoto discloses in paragraphs ¶0213 that the challenger hesitates or forgets to send data of 5,000 steps on July 24, hence the challenge contract 501 cannot determine the success/failure of the challenge, paragraph ¶0214 discloses that when step count data is not sent, the setting of considering that the challenge is a failure cannot be made in the challenge contract, paragraph ¶0215 discloses that when the data of 5,000 steps is not sent, the administrator may use email, a notice on the app, or the like on July 25 or 26 to let the fund provider or the challenger know that step count data is not sent which is consistent with the Applicant’s specification of a notification being sent to the terminal 110 indicating that the data is incorrect data. Also, Ohnemus discloses incorrect data in paragraph ¶0103 in which obtained data such as episodes such as walking in a time period as not being confirmed by the user as the episodes are considered dirty or unsuitable and labeled unconfirmed, paragraph ¶0106 discloses that a user reviews episodes and can be prompted to decide whether an inference is wrong based on the sensor data points of the episode. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-19 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 1-9 and 12-19 are directed to a method, claim 10 is directed to a system and claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. The claims recite determining whether to provide an incentive upon completion of a challenge which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “obtaining challenge content in which an incentive is provided to a user when the user achieves a goal which can be determined based on data of the user and which the user is challenging; recording first transaction data to be capable of executing provision of the incentive to the user when the goal indicated by the challenge content generated is achieved; notifying the user of the challenge content; obtaining second transaction data including first challenge content selected by the user to be registered from among the challenge content and recording the second transaction data in the [database]; obtaining the data of the user; detecting whether the obtained data of the user is correct; when (i) the obtained data of the user is detected as being correct and (ii) the first challenge content is detected to have been achieved based on the obtained data of the user; generating third transaction data including information indicating the obtained data of the user; transmitting the third transaction data and recording the third transaction data; and when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect, performing control to not the first contract by causing to not generate the third transaction data and not transmit the third transaction data which does not record the third transaction data in the ledger when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect.” 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 facilitating the provision of an incentive upon determination of whether a goal or challenge with which the user can automatically be provided an incentive is achieved based on data obtained from the user. 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 data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, detection server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract 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 data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, detection server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract 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 data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, detection server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract 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 data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, detection server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, detection server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of providing an incentive upon completion of a challenge. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the system that includes a data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, detection server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract 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 providing an incentive upon completion of a challenge. 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 a data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers such as a first authentication server and a second authentication server, detection server, a distributed ledger, a service server, a device used by a user and a first smart contract 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 execution of different contracts, obtaining the different transaction data once a challenge is said to be achieve, reciting the structure of the third transaction data, defining an algorithm for detecting the incorrect data and recording the different transaction data in a [ledger] once a contract has provided an incentive to a user which describes the abstract idea of providing an incentive upon completion of a challenge. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “a storage battery and residential power generation equipment”, 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1-19 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 claims 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 10 and 11 recites a negative limitation “when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect, performing control to not execute the first smart contract by causing the detection server to not generate the third transaction data and not transmit the third transaction data to the first authentication server, which does not record the third transaction data in the distributed ledger when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect”. According to the Applicant’s Specification, once the obtained data is detected to be incorrect, the storage 314 records the first challenge content registered by the user of terminal 110 stored in the distributed ledger of authentication server or (see ¶0167 ) or the data is recorded once the detection server 300 detects whether the data obtained from a device such as terminal 110 indicates that the user has achieved the goal indicated in the first challenge content and detects whether the data obtained from terminal 110 or the like is incorrect data (see ¶0169 ). The specification also discloses how data manager 311 may record data detected by detector 312 as incorrect data, to which information indicating that the data is incorrect data is added (see ¶0143 ) and also when detector 312 detects that the data obtained from a device such as terminal 110 is not incorrect data, that data is transmitted to data manager 311 and recorded in storage 314 (see ¶0161 ). The Specification only discloses data being recorded once it is determined as being incorrect. Therefore, the recited language is not supported by the Applicant’s originally filed Specification as it does not have basis in the original disclosure. Claims 2-9 and 12-19 are also rejected as they depend from Claims 1, 10 and 11. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NATARAJAN (US 2020/0058020 A1) in view of Ohnemus et al. (US 2018/0350451 A1) and in further view of TANIMOTO (US 2022/0294650 A1) . Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 11, NATARAJAN discloses a control method for a data distribution system, the data distribution system including a plurality of authentication servers, each having a distributed ledger, [a detection server], and a service server, the control method comprising ( ¶0042 ): obtaining challenge content in which an incentive is provided to a user when the user achieves a goal which can be determined based on data of the user and which the user is challenging, the challenge content being generated by the service server ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) recording, in the distributed ledger, first transaction data including a first smart contract programmed to be capable of executing provision of the incentive to the user when the goal indicated by the challenge content generated is achieved ( ¶0003-¶0004, ¶0007, ¶0018, ¶0020, ¶0022, ¶0046, ¶0048-¶0049, ¶0055, ¶0087, ¶0089, ¶0097-¶0098) obtaining, from the device used the user, second transaction data including first challenge content selected by the user to be registered from among the challenge content and recording the second transaction data in the distributed ledger ( ¶0089, ¶0100, ¶0102 ) obtaining, by the detection server, the data of the user from the device used the user ( ¶0094-¶0095 ) detecting, by the detection server, whether the obtained data of the user is correct; ( ¶0095, ¶0096, ¶0098, ¶0102, ¶0117 ) when (i) the obtained data of the user is detected as being correct and (ii) the first challenge content is detected to have been achieved based on the obtained data of the user, executing the first smart contract by the detection server generating third transaction data including information indicating the obtained data of the user; and transmitting the third transaction data to a first authentication server among the plurality of authentication servers, and the first authentication server recording, in the distributed ledger, the third transaction data ( ¶0094, ¶0095, ¶0096-¶0099, ¶00117 ) NATARAJAN does not disclose: notifying a device used by the user of the challenge content and when the obtained data of the user is detected as being [incorrect]. Ohnemus however discloses: [a detection server] ( ¶0072, ¶0078, ¶0086-¶0087 ) notifying a device used by the user of the challenge content ( ¶0070, ¶0113, ¶0144, ¶0145 ) when the obtained data of the user is detected as being [incorrect] ( ¶0103 “Ohnemus describes obtained data such as episodes such as walking in a time period as not being confirmed by the user as the episodes are considered dirty or unsuitable and labeled unconfirmed”, ¶0106 “a user reviews episodes and can be prompted to decide whether an inference is wrong based on the sensor data points of the episode” ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of NATARAJAN to include notifying a device used by the user of the challenge content, as disclosed in Ohnemus, in order to provide a system for integrating information received from a plurality of distinct tracking devices with historical and behavioral information associated with user activity and health (see Ohnemus ¶0042 ). The combination of NATARAJAN and Ohnemus does not disclose: when the obtained data of the user is detected as being [incorrect], performing control to not execute the first smart contract by causing the detection server to not generate the third transaction data and not transmit the third transaction data to the first authentication server, which does not record the third transaction data in the distributed ledger when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect. TANIMOTO however discloses when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect, not executing the first smart contract by not recording the third transaction data in the distributed ledger ( ¶0119-¶0121, ¶0125, ¶0212 “the failure of the challenge becomes the end determination”, ¶0213 “When the challenger hesitates or forgets to send data of 5,000 steps on July 24, the challenge contract 501 cannot determine the success/failure of the challenge”, ¶0214 “when step count data is not sent, the setting of considering that the challenge is a failure cannot be made in the challenge contract”, ¶0215 “when the data of 5,000 steps is not sent, the administrator may use email, a notice on the app, or the like on July 25 or 26 to let the fund provider or the challenger know that step count data is not sent” ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of NATARAJAN to include “when the obtained data of the user is detected as being [incorrect], performing control to not execute the first smart contract by causing the detection server to not generate the third transaction data and not transmit the third transaction data to the first authentication server, which does not record the third transaction data in the distributed ledger when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect”, as disclosed in TANIMOTO, in order to provide a program that can realize a challenge assistance system to increase the possibility that a user will achieve a challenge (see TANIMOTO ¶0008 ). Regarding Claim 2, NATARAJAN discloses: wherein the first authentication server records the third transaction data in the distributed ledger by the first authentication server executing a consensus algorithm for agreeing on a validity of the third transaction data with the plurality of second authentication servers ( ¶0100, ¶0105 ) wherein when the third transaction data is recorded in the distributed ledger, the first smart contract provides the incentive to the device used by the user ( ¶0086, ¶0087 ) Regarding Claim 3, NATARAJAN discloses: wherein the first smart contract is further programmed to be capable of executing registration of support information for the challenge content ( ¶0086 ) the first authentication server obtains fourth transaction data generated by a different device from the device, the fourth transaction data including support information for the first challenge content and ( ¶0087, ¶0089 ) the first authentication server records the fourth transaction data in the distributed ledger ( ¶0100, ¶0105 ) when the fourth transaction data is recorded in the distributed ledger, the first smart contract registers the support information for the first challenge content ( ¶0100, ¶0105 ) Regarding Claim 4, NATARAJAN discloses: wherein the first smart contract is further programmed to be capable of executing provision of an incentive to a supporter who has registered the support information for the first challenge content when the goal indicated by the first challenge content is achieved, and ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) when the third transaction data is recorded in the distributed ledger, the first smart contract provides, to the device used by the user and the different device used by the supporter ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) Regarding Claim 5, NATARAJAN discloses: wherein the first smart contract is further programmed to be capable of executing provision of more incentives as a number of supporters who have registered support information for the first challenge content increases ( ¶0003, ¶0007, ¶0022, ¶0048, ¶0055, ¶0087, ¶0089 ) Regarding Claim 6, NATARAJAN discloses obtaining fifth transaction data including a second smart contract programmed to be capable of executing a determination as to whether the data from the device used by the user can be provided based on consent information pertaining to utilization of the data, and ( ¶0087, ¶0089 ) running the second smart contract by recording the fifth transaction data in the distributed ledger ( ¶0003, ¶0007, ¶0022, ¶0048, ¶0055, ¶0087, ¶0089 ) obtaining sixth transaction data including a data obtainment request indicating a request to obtain the data the sixth transaction data being generated by the service server ( ¶0022, ¶0048 ) recording the sixth transaction data in the distributed ledger ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) wherein when the sixth transaction data is recorded in the distributed ledger, the second smart contract determines whether the data can be provided to the service server, and ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) when the second smart contract determines that the data can be provided to the service server, the data is provided to the service server ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) Regarding Claim 7, the combination of NATARAJAN, Ohnemus and TANIMOTO disclose the invention as above. Ohnemus further discloses: wherein the challenge content includes a goal for improving or maintaining health of the user, the goal being determined based on vital data of the user ( ¶0043, ¶0078, ¶0186, ¶0187, ¶0194, ¶0195 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of NATARAJAN to include wherein the challenge content includes a goal for improving or maintaining health of the user, the goal being determined based on vital data of the user, as disclosed in Ohnemus, in order to provide a system for integrating information received from a plurality of distinct tracking devices with historical and behavioral information associated with user activity and health (see Ohnemus ¶0042 ). Regarding Claim 12, NATARAJAN discloses wherein the first smart contract is programmed to: allow one or more supporter to register support information for the challenge content; increase an amount of incentives to be provided in accordance with an increase in a total number of supporters who have registered the support information, the incentives each being the incentive, the supporters being the one or more supporters; and be capable of executing provision of the amount of incentives increased to the device used by the user and one or more devices used by the one or more supporters, when the goal is achieved ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ). Regarding Claim 13, NATARAJAN discloses wherein when the obtained data of the user is detected as being correct, the obtained data of the user is recorded, and when the obtained data of the user is detected as being incorrect, the obtained data of the user is not recorded ( ¶0096-¶0099, ¶00117 ) Regarding Claim 14, NATARAJAN discloses wherein the data distribution system includes the plurality of authentication servers and the service server, the service server: generates the challenge content; generates the first smart contract; and ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) generates the first transaction data including the first smart contract, and( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) transmits the first transaction data to a first authentication server among the plurality of authentication servers, and the first authentication server: ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) records the first transaction data in the distributed ledger by executing a consensus algorithm for agreeing on a validity of the first transaction data with a plurality of second authentication servers, among the plurality of authentication servers, that are different from the first authentication server; and ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) records the second transaction data in the distributed ledger by executing a consensus algorithm for agreeing on a validity of the second transaction data with the plurality of second authentication servers ( ¶0013, ¶0045, ¶0086, ¶0087 ) Regarding Claim 15, NATARAJAN discloses wherein the first smart contract is programmed to: determine a degree of achievement of the goal based on data of the user obtained from the device; and be capable of executing provision of an incentive corresponding to the degree of achievement determined to the device used by the user ( ¶0003-¶0004, ¶0007, ¶0018, ¶0020, ¶0022, ¶0046, ¶0048-¶0049, ¶0055, ¶0087, ¶0089, ¶0097-¶0098) Regarding Claim 16, the combination of NATARAJAN, Ohnemus and TANIMOTO disclose the invention as above. Ohnemus further discloses: wherein the data of the user includes vital data detected by a sensor included in the device ( ¶0043, ¶0078, ¶0186, ¶0187, ¶0194, ¶0195 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of NATARAJAN to include wherein the data of the user includes vital data detected by a sensor included in the device, as disclosed in Ohnemus, in order to provide a system for integrating information received from a plurality of distinct tracking devices with historical and behavioral information associated with user activity and health (see Ohnemus ¶0042 ). Regarding Claim 17, the combination of NATARAJAN, Ohnemus and TANIMOTO disclose the invention as above. Ohnemus further discloses: wherein the vital data includes at least one of heart rate data, blood pressure data, or step number data ( ¶0043, ¶0078, ¶0186, ¶0187, ¶0194, ¶0195 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of NATARAJAN to include wherein the vital data includes at least one of heart rate data, blood pressure data, or step number data, as disclosed in Ohnemus, in order to provide a system for integrating information received from a plurality of distinct tracking devices with historical and behavioral information associated with user activity and health (see Ohnemus ¶0042 ). Regarding Claim 18, the combination of NATARAJAN, Ohnemus and TANIMOTO disclose the invention as above. TANIMOTO further discloses: wherein the third transaction data includes at least one of (i) a blockchain address of the user, (ii) a challenge identifier that identifies the first challenge content, (iii) information indicating a type of the data of the user that is used to determine whether the goal has been achieved, and (iv) a hash value of the data of the user ( ¶0111, ¶0120 ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of NATARAJAN to include “wherein the third transaction data includes at least one of (i) a blockchain address of the user, (ii) a challenge identifier that identifies the first challenge content, (iii) information indicating a type of the data of the user that is used to determine whether the goal has been achieved, and (iv) a hash value of the data of the user”, as disclosed in TANIMOTO, in order to provide a program that can realize a challenge assistance system to increase the possibility that a user will achieve a challenge (see TANIMOTO ¶0008 ). Regarding Claim 19, the combination of NATARAJAN, Ohnemus and TANIMOTO disclose the invention as above. Ohnemus further discloses: wherein the detecting whether the obtained data of the user is correct includes at least one of: (i) detecting step number data as incorrect data when a number of steps within a predetermined length of time is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold; (ii) detecting step number data as incorrect data when a number of steps continues to increase at a constant rate for at least the predetermined length of time; (iii) in step number data including a step number and location information, detecting the step number data as incorrect data when a change in position corresponding to the number of steps is not detected;(iv) in step number data including a number of steps and a heart rate, detecting step number data as incorrect data when the heart rate does not change for at least a predetermined length of time despite an increase in the number of steps; and(v) in body composition measurement data including body weight, detecting the body composition measurement data as incorrect data when an amount of change in the body weight within a predetermined period is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold ( ¶0103 “Ohnemus describes obtained data such as episodes such as walking in a time period as not being confirmed by the user as the episodes are considered dirty or unsuitable and labeled unconfirmed”, ¶0106 “a user reviews episodes and can be prompted to decide whether an inference is wrong based on the sensor data points of the episode” ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of NATARAJAN to include “(i) detecting step number data as incorrect data when a number of steps within a predetermined length of time is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold”, as disclosed in Ohnemus, in order to provide a system for integrating information received from a plurality of distinct tracking devices with historical and behavioral information associated with user activity and health (see Ohnemus ¶0042 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NATARAJAN in view of Ohnemus in further view of Jia et al. (US 2016/0072287 A1) Regarding Claim 8, the combination of NATARAJAN in view of Ohnemus does not disclose wherein the challenge content includes a goal for the user to use a storage battery installed in a residence in which the user resides in a manner that suppresses degradation of the storage battery for a set period of time, the goal being determined based on data indicating power remaining in the storage battery. Jia however discloses wherein the challenge content includes a goal for the user to use a storage battery installed in a residence in which the user resides in a manner that suppresses degradation of the storage battery for a set period of time, the goal being determined based on data indicating power remaining in the storage battery ( ¶0131, ¶0179 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of NATARAJAN to include wherein the challenge content includes a goal for the user to use a storage battery installed in a residence in which the user resides in a manner that suppresses degradation of the storage battery for a set period of time, the goal being determined based on data indicating power remaining in the storage battery, as disclosed in Jia, in order to provide a system to assist in maintaining grid stability during times of high stress (see Jia ¶0005 ). Regarding Claim 9, Jia discloses wherein the challenge content includes a goal for the user to use only power generated by residential power generation equipment installed in a residence in which the user resides for a set period of time, the goal being determined based on data indicating an amount of power generated by the residential power generation equipment and an amount of power used by the residence ( ¶0066, ¶0073 ) Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fazeel (US 2016/0371998 A1) - ( ¶0021, ¶0030, ¶0035, ¶0052 ) 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 Application/Control Number: 18/205,069 Page 2 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/205,069 Page 3 Art Unit: 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/205,069 Page 4 Art Unit: 3697
Prosecution Insights