DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 12/01/25. Claims 1, 10 and 11 were amended. Claim 2 was cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot due to amendments that are substantive. Per example, claim 1 recites additional elements (e.g.: “at least one server among the plurality of servers specifies …”) that necessitates reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
Claim Interpretation – Intended Use
Claim 1 recites “obtaining the record of the at least one similar data set from each of the plurality of servers with which communication with the terminal is possible thus reducing the likelihood that the record cannot be obtained and also reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record”. The claim recites obtaining “the record” with an intent to reduce “the likelihood that the record cannot be obtained and also reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record” because "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”, see MPEP 2114 (II). As such, the limitation “thus reducing the likelihood that the record cannot be obtained and also reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record” has no patentable weight. Same is true for claims 10 and 11.
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 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claims 1, 3-9 and 12-21), an apparatus (claim 10) and an article of manufacture (claim 11). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 10 is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of determining a value to an asset transaction, as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
A terminal communicably connected over a network to a management system including the terminal and a plurality of servers holding a distributed ledger,
wherein the plurality of servers include, in the distributed ledger, at least one instance of transaction data each including record information,
each of at least one instance of the record information included in a corresponding one of the at least one instance of transaction data includes a record of a data set, indicated by the record information,
each of at least one data set corresponding to one of the at least one instance of record information includes a plurality of instances of first data, among a plurality of instances of data generated by a plurality of devices, that satisfy a first condition corresponding to the data set,
the terminal is a terminal among a first terminal and a second terminal, the first terminal owned by a first user of a target data set, among the at least one data set, and the second terminal owned by a second user of the target data set, and comprises:
a transmitter that transmits, to each of the plurality of servers, a request for a record from the at least one instance of record information stored in the distributed ledger, the record being of at least one similar data set similar to the target data set;
an obtainer that obtains the record of the at least one similar data set from each of the plurality of servers with which communication with the terminal is possible, thus reducing the likelihood that the record cannot be obtained and also reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record; and
a determiner that determines a value of the target data set based on the record of the at least one similar data set obtained,
at least one server among the plurality of servers specifies a plurality of instances of target data included in the target data set from the plurality of instances of data using a first condition including a plurality of first sub conditions,
the at least one server specifies the at least one similar data set including a plurality of instances of second data that satisfy a second condition including a plurality of second sub conditions, among the plurality of instances of data, and
the plurality of second sub conditions include at least one of the plurality of first sub conditions.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“A terminal communicably connected over a network to a management system including the terminal and a plurality of servers holding a distributed ledger”. This is no more than “apply it” as “A terminal communicably connected over a network to a management system including the terminal and a plurality of servers holding a distributed ledger” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). Furthermore, this is also general linking as the “distributed ledger” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
“the plurality of servers include, in the distributed ledger”. This is no more than “apply it” as “the plurality of servers include, in the distributed ledger” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). Furthermore, this is also general linking as the “distributed ledger” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
“the terminal is a terminal among a first terminal and a second terminal”. This is no more than “apply it” as “the terminal is a terminal among a first terminal and a second terminal” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“a transmitter that transmits, to each of the plurality of servers, a request for a record from the at least one instance of record information stored in the distributed ledger”. This is no more than “apply it” as “a transmitter that transmits, to each of the plurality of servers, a request for a record from the at least one instance of record information stored in the distributed ledger” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). Furthermore, this is also general linking as “a record from the at least one instance of record information stored in the distributed ledger” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
“an obtainer”. This is no more than “apply it” as “an obtainer” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“each of the plurality of servers with which communication with the terminal is possible”. This is no more than “apply it” as “each of the plurality of servers with which communication with the terminal is possible” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record”. This is no more than “apply it” as “reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“a determiner”. This is no more than “apply it” as “a determiner” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“at least one server among the plurality of servers”. This is no more than “apply it” as “at least one server among the plurality of servers” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 3 recited “generating, by the terminal, the transaction data including the record information that includes the record of the target data set, after a trade of the target data set is established”, “transmitting, by the terminal, the transaction data to at least one of the plurality of servers” and “storing the transaction data received by the at least one of the plurality of servers in the distributed ledger by the plurality of servers executing a consensus algorithm”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“transmitting, by the terminal, the transaction data to at least one of the plurality of servers”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmitting, by the terminal, the transaction data to at least one of the plurality of servers” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“storing the transaction data received by the at least one of the plurality of servers in the distributed ledger by the plurality of servers executing a consensus algorithm”. This is no more than “apply it” as storing the transaction data received by the at least one of the plurality of servers in the distributed ledger by the plurality of servers executing a consensus algorithm” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). Furthermore, this is also general linking as “storing the transaction data received by the at least one of the plurality of servers in the distributed ledger by the plurality of servers executing a consensus algorithm” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 8 recited “determining a first value range for determining the value of the target data set, the first value range being acceptable to an owner of the terminal” “obtaining a second value range for determining the value of the target data set from an other terminal among the first terminal and the second terminal, the second value range being acceptable to an owner of the other terminal”, “specifying an overlapping value range where the first value range and the second value range overlap” and “determining a value included in the overlapping value range as the value of the target data set”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“an other terminal among the first terminal and the second terminal”. This is no more than “apply it” as “an other terminal among the first terminal and the second terminal” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 12 recited “wherein at least one server among the plurality of servers specifies the plurality of instances of target data included in the target data set from the plurality of instances of data using a first condition including a plurality of first sub conditions, the at least one server specifies the at least one similar data set including the plurality of instances of second data that satisfy the second condition including the plurality of second sub conditions, among the plurality of instances of data, and the plurality of second sub conditions include at least one of the plurality of first sub conditions”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“at least one server among the plurality of servers”. This is no more than “apply it” as “at least one server among the plurality of servers” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 14 recited “wherein the terminal obtains a record of at least one similar data set from a server of the plurality of servers via a network”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“a server of the plurality of servers via a network”. This is no more than “apply it” as “a server of the plurality of servers via a network” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 15 recited “wherein the value determined in the determining is stored in the distributed ledger”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“is stored in the distributed ledger”. This is general linking as “is stored in the distributed ledger” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 16 recited “wherein in the storing, a determination is made of whether or not the validity of the transaction data is verified and when the validity was not verified, transmitting of the transaction data to another server is not performed”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“transmitting of the transaction data to another server is not performed”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmitting of the transaction data to another server is not performed” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 17 recited “wherein at least one of the plurality of servers generates, when a number of the transaction data received is greater than a predetermined threshold value, a block including the transaction data and stores the block in the distributed ledger”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“at least one of the plurality of servers generates […] a block […] and stores the block in the distributed ledger”. This is no more than “apply it” as “at least one of the plurality of servers generates […] a block […] and stores the block in the distributed ledger” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is also general linking as “and stores the block in the distributed ledger” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 18 recited “wherein the terminal displays, via a user interface, information indicating the record of the at least one similar data set and a candidate value of the target data set” and “receives, via the user interface, an input to confirm a trade of the target data set”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“the terminal displays, via a user interface, information”. This is no more than “apply it” as “the terminal displays, via a user interface, information” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 19 recited “wherein an automatic determination is made to trade the target data set based on the trading price when an input indicating an affirmative response to the trade is made between the first user and the second user”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“an automatic determination is made”. This is no more than “apply it” as “an automatic determination is made” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 20 recited “wherein a single trading price is automatically determined by comparing ranges of trading prices acceptable to both the first user and the second use”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“is automatically determined”. This is no more than “apply it” as “is automatically determined” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 21 recited “wherein each of the plurality of servers includes”, “a communicator that receives the request from the terminal”, “a controller that determines the second condition similar to the first condition included in the request”, “a reader that reads out, from the distributed ledger, the record of the at least one similar data set specified by the second condition” and “the distributed ledger”, additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements.
The additional elements are as follows:
“each of the plurality of servers includes”, “a communicator”, “the terminal”, “a controller”, “a reader” and “the distributed ledger”. This is no more than “apply it” as “each of the plurality of servers includes”, “a communicator”, “the terminal”, “a controller”, “a reader” and “the distributed ledger” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is also general linking as “the distributed ledger” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of determining a value to an asset transaction, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
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, 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.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220222659 A1 (Guo) in view of US 20190251199 A1 (Klianeve) in further view of US 7587623 B2 (Melander).
As to claims 1, 10 and 11,
Guo teaches,
wherein the plurality of servers include, in the distributed ledger, at least one instance of transaction data each including record information (para. 295 “blockchain … recording data”),
each of at least one instance of the record information included in a corresponding one of the at least one instance of transaction data includes a record of a data set, indicated by the record information (FIG. 3, item 310, para. 72 “a target service object (or a service target), the data resource transfer request including a target data resource type, an original data resource type, and a target data resource transfer amount”),
each of at least one data set corresponding to one of the at least one instance of record information includes at least one instance of data, among a plurality of instances of data generated by a plurality of devices, that satisfies a condition corresponding to the data set (FIG. 3, item 320, para. 86-88 “an original data resource transfer amount is determined according to the target data resource transfer amount”),
the data management method comprises performing the following, by the terminal which is a terminal among a first terminal and a second terminal, the first terminal owned by a first user of a target data set, among the at least one data set, and the second terminal owned by a second user of the target data set (para. 88 “the currency exchange request …”):
transmitting, to each of the plurality of servers, a request for a record from the at least one instance of record information [stored in the distributed ledger], the record being of at least one similar data set similar to the target data set (para. 88 “a basic exchange rate between the local currency and the foreign currency is obtained”, FIG. 17, item S1702, S1703, ¶ 242-243);
obtaining the record of the at least one similar data set from each of the plurality of servers with which communication with the terminal is possible (para. 88-89 “a basic exchange rate between the local currency and the foreign currency is obtained”, FIG. 17, item S1702, S1703, ¶ 242-243), [thus reducing the likelihood that the record cannot be obtained and also reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record];
determining a value of the target data set based on the record of the at least one similar data set obtained (FIG. 17, item S1704, para. 244 “a local currency amount payable by the client is calculated”, para. 88-89),
at least one server among the plurality of servers specifies a plurality of instances of target data included in the target data set from the plurality of instances of data using a first condition including a plurality of first sub conditions (para. 88 “calculating a basic exchange rate of the currency exchange platform using specific calculation rules (for example, the calculation rules, such as the averages, the medians, the weighted averages, the maximums, and the minimums, of all banks”),
the at least one server specifies the at least one similar data set including a plurality of instances of second data that satisfy a second condition including a plurality of second sub conditions, among the plurality of instances of data, and the plurality of second sub conditions include at least one of the plurality of first sub conditions (para. 88 “calculating a basic exchange rate of the currency exchange platform using specific calculation rules (for example, the calculation rules, such as the averages, the medians, the weighted averages, the maximums, and the minimums, of all banks”).
Guo does not teach,
[transmitting … a request for a record …] stored in the distributed ledger […],
[obtaining …] thus reducing the likelihood that the record cannot be obtained and also reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record;
however, Klianev teaches,
[transmitting … a request for a record …] stored in the distributed ledger (para. 167 “The owner of account 1512 in ledger 1511 requests from blockchain network 1510 transfer of XXX units of a crypto token from account 1512 in ledger”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine digital currency exchange of Guo with blockchain based financial transaction management of Klianev because blockchain based financial transaction management improves digital currency exchange by enhancing transaction security because “Blockchain-based currencies cannot be counterfeited and can be easily traced”, see Klianev para. 10.
combination of Guo and Klianeve do not teach
[obtaining …] thus reducing the likelihood that the record cannot be obtained and also reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record.
however, Melander teaches,
[obtaining …] thus reducing the likelihood that the record cannot be obtained and also reducing an amount of power required to obtain the record (This limitation is intended use of “providing … a specification”, see mpep 2114(II). However, to promote compact prosecution, The Examiner provides the following citation: col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 25 “If the primary server fails for some reason, the secondary server is accordingly able to take over and take the role as primary node and accept incoming messages. On the other hand, if the secondary server fails for some reason, the primary server just continuous to operate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine digital currency exchange of Guo with blockchain based financial transaction management of Klianev with system redundancy of Melander because system redundancy improves digital currency exchange by providing failure mitigation because “server just continuous to operate”, see Melander col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 25.
Additionally with respect to claim 1,
Guo teaches,
A data management method using a management system that includes a terminal and a plurality of servers (para. 290 “The system related to the embodiments of this application may be a distributed system formed by connecting a client 2420 to a plurality of nodes”) holding a distributed ledger (para. 295 “Application: which is deployed in a blockchain”),
Additionally, with respect to claim 10,
Guo teaches,
A terminal communicably connected over a network to a management system including the terminal and a plurality of servers holding a distributed ledger (para. 290, 295)
Additionally, with respect to claim 11,
Guo teaches,
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute (para. 8 “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to process”) a data management method using a management system that includes a terminal and a plurality of servers holding a distributed ledger (para. 295, 299).
As to claim 3, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
generating, by the terminal, the transaction data including the record information that includes the record of the target data set, after a trade of the target data set is established (FIG. 3, item S320, ¶ 91),
transmitting, by the terminal, the transaction data to at least one of the plurality of servers (FIG. 3, item S330, ¶ 102),
storing the transaction data received by the at least one of the plurality of servers in the distributed ledger by the plurality of servers executing a consensus algorithm (¶ 295).
As to claim 4, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
the determining includes (¶ 88-89)
determining the value of the target data set based on the value of one similar data set among the at least one similar data set (¶ 88-89).
As to claim 5, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all the limitations of claim 1 and 4.
Guo teaches,
the one similar data set is a newest similar data set among the at least one similar data set (¶ 88-89, 91).
As to claim 6, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Guo teaches,
the determining includes (¶ 88-89),
setting the value of the target data set higher as a total number of the at least one similar data set increases (¶ 88-89, 92).
As to claim 7, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 5.
Guo teaches,
determining includes setting a higher value for the value of the target data set as a number by which the at least one similar data set increases per unit of time increases (¶ 88).
As to claim 8, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
determining a first value range for determining the value of the target data set, the first value range being acceptable to an owner of the terminal (para. 88);
obtaining a second value range for determining the value of the target data set from an other terminal among the first terminal and the second terminal, the second value range being acceptable to an owner of the other terminal (para. 137);
specifying an overlapping value range where the first value range and the second value range overlap (para. 138);
determining a value included in the overlapping value range as the value of the target data set (para. 139-140).
As to claim 9, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Guo teaches,
wherein the determining of the value includes determining a median value of the overlapping value range as the value of the target data set (para. 139-140).
As to claim 12, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
wherein at least one server among the plurality of servers specifies the plurality of instances of target data included in the target data set from the plurality of instances of data using a first condition including a plurality of first sub conditions, the at least one server specifies the at least one similar data set including the plurality of instances of second data that satisfy the second condition including the plurality of second sub conditions, among the plurality of instances of data, and the plurality of second sub conditions include at least one of the plurality of first sub conditions (para. 88 “calculating a basic exchange rate of the currency exchange platform using specific calculation rules (for example, the calculation rules, such as the averages, the medians, the weighted averages, the maximums, and the minimums, of all banks”).
As to claim 13, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
wherein the server changes a parameter for defining a part of a sub condition among the plurality of first sub conditions included in the first condition, and maintains a parameter for defining another sub condition without changing, to generate the second condition including the plurality of second sub conditions (para. 88 “calculating a basic exchange rate of the currency exchange platform using specific calculation rules (for example, the calculation rules, such as the averages, the medians, the weighted averages, the maximums, and the minimums, of all banks”).
As to claim 14, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1
Guo teaches,
wherein the terminal obtains a record of at least one similar data set from a server of the plurality of servers via a network (FIG. 3, item S310, para. 72 “the electronic device receives a data resource transfer request from a target service object (or a service target), the data resource transfer request including a target data resource type, an original data resource type, and a target data resource transfer amount.”).
As to claim 15, combination Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1.
Guo does not teach,
wherein the value determined in the determining is stored in the distributed ledger.
however, Klianeve teaches,
wherein the value determined in the determining is stored in the distributed ledger (para. 157 “transfer of value from an account in the ledger of one blockchain network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine digital currency exchange of Guo with blockchain based financial transaction management of Klianev with system redundancy of Melander because blockchain based financial transaction management improves digital currency exchange by enhancing transaction security because “Blockchain-based currencies cannot be counterfeited and can be easily traced”, see Klianev para. 10.
As to claim 16, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
wherein in the storing, a determination is made of whether or not the validity of the transaction data is verified (para. 295 “ verifying a source and integrity of the recorded data”) and when the validity was not verified, transmitting of the transaction data to another server is not performed (para. 297 “providing a trade function … after successfully verifying the trade record”).
As to claim 17, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1.
Guo does not teach,
wherein at least one of the plurality of servers generates, when a number of the transaction data received is greater than a predetermined threshold value, a block including the transaction data and stores the block in the distributed ledger.
however, Klianeve teaches,
wherein at least one of the plurality of servers generates, when a number of the transaction data received is greater than a predetermined threshold value, a block including the transaction data and stores the block in the distributed ledger (para. 154 “One of the algorithm may be triggered by each one of the following events: 1) reached the threshold of received requests for transaction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine digital currency exchange of Guo with blockchain based financial transaction management of Klianev with system redundancy of Melander because blockchain based financial transaction management improves digital currency exchange by enhancing transaction security because “Blockchain-based currencies cannot be counterfeited and can be easily traced”, see Klianev para. 10.
As to claim 18, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
wherein the terminal displays, via a user interface, information indicating the record of the at least one similar data set and a candidate value of the target data set, and receives, via the user interface, an input to confirm a trade of the target data set (para. 298 “transmit an acknowledgment to a node initiating the operations”).
As to claim 19, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
wherein an automatic determination is made to trade the target data set based on the trading price when an input indicating an affirmative response to the trade is made between the first user and the second user (FIG. 17, items S1702, 1703, 1704, 1705, 1707, para. 242-247).
As to claim 20, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
wherein a single trading price is automatically determined by comparing ranges of trading prices acceptable to both the first user and the second user (para. 88 “monitoring bank exchange rate exceptions: discovering an abnormal situation of a reference exchange rate of a bank from exchange rate differences between different banks at the same time and exchange rate fluctuations of the same bank at different times, to prevent an abnormal exchange rate from being entered into the system”).
As to claim 21, combination of Guo, Klianeve and Melander teach all limitations of claim 1.
Guo teaches,
wherein each of the plurality of servers (FIG. 23, para. 75 “currency exchange platform”) includes:
a communicator that receives the request from the terminal (FIG. 23, para. 75 “a client login gateway subsystem”);
a controller that determines the second condition similar to the first condition included in the request (FIG. 23, para. 75 “order trade subsystem”);
a reader that reads out, from the distributed ledger, the record of the at least one similar data set specified by the second condition (para. 295 “Application: which is deployed in a blockchain”);
the distributed ledger (para. 298 “shared ledger”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights