DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE, Remarks, and Amendments filed 01/14/2026.
Claims 4-5, 7-13, 18-19 are canceled.
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 15, 17, 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 6, 14-17, 20-24 have been examined and are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026, has been entered.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 6, 14-17, 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 14, 15:
determining an item to be audited, according to the type of the requester, wherein the item to be audited is relevant to a key factor of an audit… where the item for distraction is irrelevant to the key factor of the audit,
generating a first audit result according to target data and an audit template, wherein the target data is in the first original data and corresponds to the item to be audited,
searching the blockchain for a first piece of data according to a second piece of data…, wherein the first piece of data comprises one or both of the first original data or the first audit result;
comparing the first piece of data… with a third piece of data… to determine whether the first piece of data is consistent with the third piece of data; and
determining that the data submitted by the requester passes an audit, in response to the first piece of data being consistent with the third piece of data.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within a combination of the groups Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations).
That is, each of the “determining” steps and the “generating” step, as drafted, are a business decision to conduct an audit, and determine whether an audit passes or fails, e.g. making use of the idea of using an audit control [e.g. an item for distraction], which generates a result [a first audit result] according to a pre-existing template and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Furthermore, the generic features of “searching” for data in a “blockchain” (i.e. within a ledger, albeit an electronic ledger) and “comparing” data, when recited at this very high-level of generality are nothing more than mathematical concepts and concepts which could be performed mentally; i.e. searching for data and comparing data against a standard (i.e. the third piece of data) within such a distributed ledger [i.e. the blockchain] is an abstraction without a technical solution as Applicant has not invented blockchain nor has applicant invented templates nor specific techniques of searching nor comparison and these cannot be considered inventive aspects themselves.
There is no technological solution being claimed to a technical problem. Instead, the invention is directed towards method/system of conducting a generic audit through generic use of templates and blockchain – this is purely a business decision with a further business decision to record such information in a distributed ledger (i.e. a blockchain). Furthermore, generic use of computer components (e.g. a display, and audit system, etc…) to facilitate the abstract idea, do not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts (using generic computer components to facilitate use of blockchain and templates) and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case conducting a business audit) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. transferring and gathering data). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “receiving, by an audit system, an audit request from a requester, wherein the audit request comprises a type of the requester; …displaying, by an audit system, via a graphical user interface (GUI), items that comprise the item to be audited and an item for distraction… and the GUI provides an input interface prompting the requester to input original data corresponding to the items; … receiving, by an audit system, first original data, which is inputted by the requester for each of the items via the input interface;…wherein, … the audit template is generated based on the item to be audited and comprises referential data for the item to be audited… receiving, by the audit system, data submitted by the requester…”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “receiving” data regardless of the description of data. The requester (i.e. a human actor) does not apparently require any particular inventive hardware to perform the step. The display itself is not a technical feature but is insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the description of data is not significantly more than the abstract idea but only serves to provide context for the field of use of the abstract idea. Finally, the description that a template “is generated” appears to be a colloquialism to connote the idea that the template pre-exists the claimed method and system – i.e. the invention is not directed towards “generating” templates nor any particular technique for their generation but instead is directed towards use of pre-existing, pre-generated templates which have already been created. Therefore, this description of the generic template does not add insight into the manner of performing the already identified abstract idea. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts and link them to a field of use or are insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. business decision to conduct an audit where such information is stored in a blockchain), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, display, and data transfer). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 2 and 16 recite the following: “…determining a weight for each of a plurality of candidate items, according to the type of the requester; and determining, among the plurality of candidate items, a candidate item having the weight greater than a preset threshold, as the item to be audited.” However, this is part of the abstract idea when recited at this extremely high-level of generality. There is no technical solution being claimed nor a technical problem being solved. Instead, at this level of generality, this is merely a business decision to choose a weight for an item to audit, e.g. where choice is a business decision and should generally relate to the type of business being audited (e.g. choose to audit human safety protocol [item assigned a high weight because relevant to business] for a company operating a nuclear power plant [according to the type of the requester] vs. choosing to audit drug dispensary protocol [item assigned a low weight because irrelevant to business].
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 14-17, 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 14, 15 have been amended, in part, to recite the following:
“…receiving, by an audit system, an audit request from a requester, wherein the audit request comprises a type of the requester; …
receiving, by the audit system, data submitted by the requester,
searching, by the audit system, the block chain for a first piece of data according to a second piece of data within the data submitted by the request,…” – underlines added for emphasis.
Respectfully, applicant’s “the request” appears to refer to an aforementioned “an audit request” which is the only previous reference to a request in the present claims. This audit request is, in a general sense, received data. Furthermore, the term "comprises" is an open-ended transitional phrase indicating that the claimed invention includes the listed elements (e.g. in this case “a type of the requester”) but does not exclude additional, unrecited components or steps. Therefore, the received “request” includes at least “a type of requester” but is not limited thereto and may contain additional data.
However, this newly introduced “the request” introduces an issue as it is modified by “the data submitted by” which may perhaps be a reference to a newly added feature -i.e. “data submitted by the requestor”.
Therefore, it is not at all clear to which “data” the applicant is attempting to reference as this newly introduced “the request” is different than a “requester”. Perhaps, the applicant has made an error and intended to reference the previously mentioned “the requestor”; i.e. the limitation regarding “searching” should reference a “requestor” and not a “request”?
Regardless, it is entirely unclear what applicant is now attempting to claim due to this confusion. Furthermore, the specification does not clarify this matter. Therefore, the claims are considered indefinite. Correction, clarification, or amendment are required.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the feature in question as recited on its face – i.e. the “searching” limitation is indeed intended by the applicant to reference data submitted by “the request” which can only be the previously referenced “an audit request”. Therefore, it is this “audit request” which is now being claimed as having “a second piece of data” which is “within the data submitted by the request”.
Furthermore, dependent claim 22 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention. Dependent claim 22, is newly added, and recites the following: “…The method according to claim 1, further comprising: uploading the data of the display page and the tag to the blockchain.” However, respectfully, claim 1 does not mention nor reference either a “display page” nor a “tag”. It is entirely unclear to what data of the display page and the tag the claim is now attempting to reference. As such, the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, the claim is at least indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis. For each reason, the claim is indefinite.
Furthermore, dependent claim 23 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention. Dependent claim 23, is newly added, and recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
242
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Respectfully, Claim 23 depends ultimately from claim 1 which has already established, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, that the first piece of data comprises both of the first original data and the first audit result, by reciting the following: “the first piece of data comprises one or both of the first original data or the first audit result.” – underline added for emphasis.
However, now claim 23 now appears to remove this limitation imposed by claim 1 and only require “the first piece of data” be either “the first original data” OR, “the first audit result” but not both the first original data and the first audit result. Therefore, it is now not clear what the scope of the claimed subject matter is intended to encompass. The claim is therefore considered indefinite. A great deal of speculation is required for an artisan of ordinary skill to interpret the claim. Correction, clarification, or amendment are required.
Furthermore, dependent claim 24 is similarly rejected as claim 23 for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 24 depends ultimately from claim 1 which has already established, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, that the first piece of data comprises both of the first original data and the first audit result, by reciting the following: “the first piece of data comprises one or both of the first original data or the first audit result.” However, now claim 24 appears to remove this limitation and instead require “the first piece of data” be “the first audit result and the first audit result” but not both “of the first original data or the first audit result.” For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6, 16-17, 20-24 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 depends ultimately from claim 1 which has already established, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, that the first piece of data comprises both of the first original data and the first audit result, by reciting the following: “the first piece of data comprises one or both of the first original data or the first audit result.” However, now claim 23 appears to remove this limitation and only require “the first piece of data” be either “the first original data” OR, “the first audit result” but not both “of the first original data or the first audit result.”
Similarly, claim 24 depends ultimately from claim 1 which has already established, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, that the first piece of data comprises both of the first original data and the first audit result, by reciting the following: “the first piece of data comprises one or both of the first original data or the first audit result.” However, now claim 24 appears to remove this limitation and instead require “the first piece of data” be “the first audit result and the first audit result” but not both “of the first original data or the first audit result.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Note
Adhering to the guidelines of MPEP 2173.06(II), the Examiner acknowledges that all words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. However, when the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible.
First, where the degree of uncertainty is not great, and where the claim is subject to more than one interpretation and at least one interpretation would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, an appropriate course of action would be for the examiner to enter two rejections: (A) a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; and (B) a rejection over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claims which renders the prior art applicable. See, e.g., Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important for the examiner to point out how the claim is being interpreted.
Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
In the present set of claims (filed 01/14/2026), a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of dependent claims 22, 23, and 24 exists. Therefore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not made regarding this claim, because, as shown in the 35 USC § 112 rejection, speculation and conjecture must be utilized by the Office and the artisan inasmuch as the claims do not adequately reflect what the disclosed invention is under the second paragraph of 35 USC § 112. Again, see In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over King et al. (US 2008/183519 A1; hereinafter, "King") in view of Cheng (U.S. 2020/0167346 A1; hereinafter, "Cheng").
Claims 1, 14, 15 (Currently amended)
Pertaining to claims 1, 14, 15 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, King as shown teaches the following:
A method for auditing data […] (King, see at least [0007] and [0053], teaching, e.g.: “an audit system is further operable to monitor any existing or approved services in case circumstances change, or in case the service should not have been allowed. Such an audit system can: configure and implement audit processes, etc…”) comprising:
receiving, by an audit system, an audit request from a requester (King, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0002]-[0003] and [0058] e.g. “Web application server 130 processes audit data and user computer requests”; see also at least [0075]), wherein the audit request comprises a type of the requester (King, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0069]-[0073] and [0153], teaching, e.g.: request originates from and pertains to “certain type of business or industry”, etc…);
determining, by the audit system, an item to be audited according to the type of the requester, wherein the item to be audited is relevant to a key factor of an audit (King, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0069]-[0073] as well as [0119] e.g.: “For example, if the business flow [item to be audited] being audited is Order to Cash, the order to cash audit project template is used. The tasks required to audit the process risks of the Order to Cash process are also in the audit project template…”; the item to be audited, by virtue of being audited, is a key factor of the audit. Furthermore, the “business flow” is according to the type of business – i.e. the type of requestor; see also at least [0186]-[0199]);
displaying, by the audit system, via a graphical user interface (GUI), items that comprise: the item to be audited and an item for distraction, wherein the item for distraction is irrelevant to the key factor of the audit, and the GUI provides an input interface prompting the requester to input original data corresponding to the items (King, see citations noted supra, including also at least Figs. 19F and 19H, e.g. per [0186]-[0199] e.g.: “…As discussed in detail below, the audit system can generate survey questionnaires [input interface prompting the requester to input original data corresponding to the items]. Survey questionnaires can be generated automatically by the audit system... Surveys can be associated with one or more contexts, which include an enterprise, an organization within the enterprise, a business process, a risk [an item to be audited], a control [an item for distraction], or any combination thereof… FIG. 19F illustrates a screen display 1962 showing the management of question answer attributes for a question on a panel in the survey questionnaire according to one embodiment…”; see also at least [0216]-[0218] regarding other types of items generated for display);
receiving first original data, by the audit system, which is inputted by the requester for each of the items via the input interface (King, see citations noted supra, including [0186]-[0199], e.g.: “…FIG. 19F illustrates a screen display 1962 showing the management of question answer attributes [original data inputted by the requester] for a question on a panel in the survey questionnaire [regarding the items] according to one embodiment…”);
generating, by the audit system, a first audit result according to target data and an audit template (King, see citations noted supra, e.g. questionnaire response, i.e. “survey results” and “survey recipients’ answers” [audit result] according to survey questions [target data] and the automatically generated questionnaire [template]; e.g. note again [0079] “…The audit manager 305 also includes project templates… An audit project template can include …document templates, and standard deliverables needed for an audit of an associated business process…” in view of at least [0186], teaching: “…deploying, and analyzing surveys to perform risk assessment. As discussed in detail below, the audit system can generate survey questionnaires. Survey questionnaires can be generated automatically by the audit system… Using the process library and the associated sets of process risks and process controls, the audit system can automatically determine the set of individuals that should participate in the survey. Using the core applications discussed above, the audit system can then distribute survey questionnaires to the set of individuals and collect the survey results. Survey results [first audit result] can be aggregated to create risk assessments detailing the perceived risks to the survey context…”), wherein the target data is in the first original data and corresponds to the item to be audited, (King, again see citations noted supra, e.g. per [0186]-[0199], the survey questions [target data] are attributes of information input by a requester using a survey “script wizard” [template] and “question template”, e.g. depicted per Fig. 19F and noting: “…Surveys can be associated with [corresponds to] one or more contexts, which include an enterprise, an organization within the enterprise, a business process, a risk [an item to be audited], a control [an item for distraction], or any combination thereof…”) and the audit template is generated based on the item to be audited and comprises referential data for the item to be audited (King, again see citations noted supra, e.g. per [0186]-[0199] teaching: “…A survey question library includes a set of questions and/or question templates. In one embodiment, the survey question library also associates each question with one or more contexts and/ or components. Based upon the specified contexts [based on the item to be audited, as noted supra “context” includes “a risk”; i.e. applicant’s “an item to be audited”)]…, the audit system selects a portion of the set of questions to create a survey questionnaire matching the specifications [referential data] of the risk assessment…”; see also at least [0080], [0113]–[0118], [0133], and [0134] ); and
[…]
receiving, by the audit system, data submitted by the requester (King, see again citations noted supra including e.g. Figs. 15-17 and 19F-23A/B and [0175]-[0182] and [0203]-[0207], e.g. a user submits answers to questionnaire, these may be answers to a second questionnaire configured by a user requesting a second or parallel audit);
[…]
Although King teaches the above limitations, he may not explicitly teach the nuance of storage of his “question answer attributes” [original data inputted by the requester] and his “survey results” and “survey recipients’ answers” [audit result] in a blockchain. However, regarding storage and auditing of such survey data within a blockchain, King in view of Cheng (directed towards blockchain based
recording and querying methods and apparatuses) teaches the following:
…based on a blockchain,… uploading the first original data and the first audit result to the blockchain (Cheng, see at least [0032]-[0033], e.g.: “credit score” of a target user is uploaded in the form of a credential to a blockchain; and per [0045]-[0046], e.g.: “…The audit parties transmit [upload] audit results [e.g. a first audit result] to the blockchain, and the blockchain executes the smart contract for the entering application, …”; see also at least [0117]-[0127], e.g.: “…The recording unit 720 includes: a generation subunit configured to generate a corresponding hash digest according to the user identifier; and a transmission subunit configured to replace the user identifier in the behavior data with the hash digest, and package the behavior data into the credential storage transaction and transmit [upload] the credential storage transaction [original data] to the node device on the blockchain…”)
searching, by the audit system, the blockchain for a first piece of data according to a second piece of data within the data submitted by the request, wherein the first piece of data comprises one or both of the first original data or the first audit result (Cheng, see citations noted supra, including also Figs. 1-5 and 9 and [0111]-[0112], e.g.: “…the query transaction includes a hash digest. In this example, the hash digest is a hash value acquired by performing a hash calculation on a user identifier of the target user. Querying the credit scores of the target user in the respective service systems includes: searching for credit scores [first pieces of data comprising the original data] corresponding to respective hash digests [second pieces of data] in the blockchain…” see also [0113]-[0131])
comparing, by the audit system, the first piece of data, which is found in the block chain through the searching, with a third piece of data within the data submitted by the requester to determine whether the first piece of data is consistent with the third piece of data (Cheng, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0116]-[0121], teaching a target user’s “credit score” [first piece of data] may be calculated based on a behavior data such as the target user’s “user identifier of the target user” [third piece of data]; furthermore, comparison of a user identifier with a specific target user’s credit score may be used to determine whether the credit score is consistent with the particular user identifier; i.e. whether it is the same user identifier which was used to create and store the credit score in the blockchain.); and
determining, by the audit system, that the data submitted by the requester passes an audit, in response to the first piece of data being consistent with the third piece of data (Cheng, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0039]-[0055] in view of [0116]-[0121], teaching, e.g.: “…After the platform party receives the summarized audit result, if passing through the examination [determining the data submitted by the requester passes an audit], it will transmit a smart contract creation transaction to create corresponding smart contract. The blockchain will calculate credit contract digests, and verify whether the contract has been approved and is valid. After passing through the verification, it will be created. After the credit contract is successfully created, it will be publicized by the publicity party…”; the audit result is after, therefore in response to, the “credit score” [first piece of data] of interest in the block chain being found to be consistent with the target user’s “user identifier” [third piece of data], where the target user is a subject of the approved and valid smart contract.);
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying known techniques of Cheng (Directed towards techniques of providing blockchain based recording and querying methods and apparatuses useful for audits) which is applicable to a known base device/method of King (already directed towards receiving and generating audit result data, including “question answer attributes” [original data inputted by the requester] and his “survey results” and “survey recipients’ answers” [audit result], which requires storage) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Cheng to the device/method of King in order to similarly store King’s audit data in a blockchain because King and Cheng are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 2, 16 (Original)
King/Cheng teach the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, King teaches the following:
…wherein determining the item to be audited according to the type of the requester comprises: determining a weight for each of a plurality of candidate items, according to the type of the requester; and determining, among the plurality of candidate items, a candidate item having the weight greater than a preset threshold, as the item to be audited (King, see citations noted supra in view of at least [0203], e.g.: “…After each audit, weights are increased for survey questions that correctly predict audit results and decreased for survey questions that do not correctly predict audit results…”).
Claims 3, 17 (Currently amended)
King/Cheng teach the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, King/Cheng teaches the following:
…the data submitted by the requester is data of a display page, wherein the data of the display page comprises a second audit result, second original data, and description information, which are configured by the requester (King, see again citations noted supra including e.g. Figs. 15-17 and 19F-23A/B and [0175]-[0182] and [0203]-[0207], e.g. a user submits answers to questionnaire [data of a display page], these may be answers to a second questionnaire configured by a user requesting a second or parallel audit)
Claims 6, 20 (Previously presented)
King/Cheng teach the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, King teaches the following:
…further comprising: receiving from the requester a request for data update, wherein the request comprises updated data, and the updated data comprises at least one of: data of the display page that is updated, the first original data that is updated, or the second original data that is updated (King, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0203], teaching, e.g.: “…In a further embodiment, the set of correlations between survey question results and audit results can be updated after each survey and audit in an enterprise. Thus, an enterprise can start with the set of default correlations when the audit system is initially installed and gradually update its set of correlations to reflect the analysis of its own past survey question results and audit results…”); generating an updated audit result based on the updating data request (King, see citations noted supra regarding “certification” of audit results, e.g. Figs. 15, 18 etc…; and e.g. [0053]: “certify new [updated] business processes [audit data]” King’s audit results which may be a result of new/updated data are also certified and therefore constitute an “updated” certified audit result [updated audit result]; many other interpretations of applicant’s very broad feature are possible and also read on the teachings of King); and uploading the updated audit result and the updated data to the blockchain (storage [uploading] of such audit data in a blockchain is obvious over King in view of Cheng, as already noted supra.)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over King in view of Cheng further in view of Ivey et al. (US 10,798,485 B1; hereinafter, "Ivey").
Claim 21 (New)
Although King/Cheng teach the limitations upon which these claims depend including determining that the data submitted by the requester passes the audit, as noted supra, and teaching a display page of audit results, e.g. per King Fig. 21B and [0198], they may not explicitly teach the below nuances regarding generating a tag/QR code/link to such a display page. However, regarding, this feature King/Cheng in view of Ivey teaches the following:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: generating a tag for the data of the display page, in response to determining that the data submitted by the requester passes the audit; and displaying the generated tag; wherein the tag is configured to uniquely identify the data of the display page, and a terminal device displays the display page in response to the terminal device scanning the tag (Ivey, see at least Figs. 7-8 e.g. #238 unique QR code [tag], and [6:30-47], and claim1, teaching a system comprising a smart phone wirelessly connectable to a wireless network and operable to scan a unique QR code [generated tag] from a digital display screen, and operable to translate said scanned unique QR code [tag] into a unique URL, and operable to access a unique website addressed by said unique URL, and operable to display pages of said unique website, etc…
PNG
media_image2.png
692
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Ivey (directed towards generating a unique QR code [tag], displaying such code, enabling a device such as user phone to scan such code [tag] which in response to such scanning displays the data of a unique display page associated with the unique URL) which is applicable to a known base device/method of King/Cheng (already directed towards a system/method displaying results of an audit, which may be unique for a particular user request) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Ivey to the device/method of King/Cheng in order to perform the limitation in question because Ivey is pertinent to King/Cheng’s display page and user access thereof and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 4, 15, 17, 18 and canceled claims 4-5, 7-13, 18-19, and added new claims 21-24 on 01/14/2026. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 01/14/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 USC 101, 112(b), (d), and 103 rejections with updated citations to King in view of Cheng teaching applicant’s amended features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621