DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgments
Claims 1 and 4-12 have been amended. Claim 13 is new. Claims 1-13 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/23/2025, to claims 5, 7, and 10-12 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Rejection 09/30/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 5, 7, and 10-12 (with respect to the limitation “the obtained shareholder information”) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/23/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s remark that claim 3 recites “associate the voting account with shareholder information of an owner of the voting account,” and therefore provides sufficient antecedent basis for “the shareholder information obtained,” the shareholder information is not being obtained in the associate step. To associate the voting account with shareholder information is not the same as obtaining the shareholder information. Associating is merely establishing a relationship between the voting account with the shareholder information, not necessarily obtaining the shareholder information. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 stands.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/23/2025, to claims 4 and 8-9 are not sufficient to overcome the previously set forth 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. Please see the rejection below for the rationale.
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/23/2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 6 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state –
“Claim 6 is directed to a computer-implemented voting architecture that controls how transaction information is temporarily stored in a holding ledger provided in a server and subsequently broadcast and recorded on a distributed ledger at a defined time. In other words, the claim is directed to a specific technical mechanism for handling and sequencing ledger transactions in a distributed computing environment, rather than to rules for voting or human decision-making activities themselves.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, handling and sequencing ledger transactions is not a specific technical mechanism. Holding transaction information and then recording the transaction information after a period of time is not a technical process. Merely reciting doing so by a server and recording the transaction information on the distributed ledger is no more than using a computer to carry out the abstract idea.
“Similarly, Claim 6 in the present application is directed to a specific technical architecture that controls how transaction information is temporarily stored in a server-side holding ledger and subsequently broadcast and recorded on a distributed ledger at a defined time, rather than to the abstract concept of voting or re-voting itself Thus, Claim 6 is further directed to patent eligible subject matter as they are embodied in a practical application that imposes a meaningful limitation on the claim.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, the storing, broadcasting, and recording the transaction information were identified as additional elements that are no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Storing, broadcasting, and recording the transaction information are analogous to storing information in memory, transmitting data over a network and electronic recordkeeping, all of which are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. They have been recited in a generic manner and therefore do not contribute to the specific technical architecture as asserted by the Applicant. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
“This arrangement imposes concrete timing and storage constraints on how and when ledger transactions are recorded, rather than merely implementing voting rules or recordkeeping on a generic computer. At least these features are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activities performed in a generic manner, and instead reflect a particular technical solution to problems arising in distributed voting and ledger systems. Accordingly, these features provide an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, broadcasting and recording the transaction information at an end of a predetermined period is not a technical solution. Imposing a timing constraint is not technical in nature. Merely reciting a temporal limit does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea of registering to vote and being provided a ballot to cast a vote because voting, by nature, has timing constraints. Furthermore, Applicant’s remarks state that the arrangement also imposes storage constraints. Although the claim recites “temporarily store,” there is no other language that dictates what is considered “temporary.” Even if a specific period is indicated, imposing a storage constraint is not technical in nature and therefore, cannot provide a particular technical solution.
In light of the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 6 regarding the four categories of patent eligible subject matter has been withdrawn. However, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 6 with respect to the claimed invention being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more stands.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 11-12, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Karro et al. WO 02/46883.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the 1st or 2nd “that is, before a voting day, to allow re-voting by a user during the predetermined period” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claims 1 and 6 recite “in a holding ledger provided in the server.” The instant specification discloses a transaction-information-holding means, Fig. 1 22, [0011], [0022]. However, a “transaction-information-holding means” is broader in scope than a “holding ledger.” The instant specification does not disclose that such holding means can include a ledger. Therefore, the amended claims introduce new matter.
Claims 2-5 and 7-13 depend from rejected base claim 1. They do not cure the deficiencies above. Therefore, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for at least based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
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 3-4, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the shareholder information obtained.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 4 and 8-9 recite the limitation "the voting account held by the controller.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 4 and 8-9 are dependent from claims 1-3, respectively. Claims 1-4 and 8-9 do not recite any voting account that is held by the controller. The controller performs operations to the voting account, but does not hold the voting account.
Claims 9 and 11 depend from claim 3. Claim 12 depends from claim 4. They do not cure the deficiencies above. Therefore, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for at least based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 6 falls into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 6 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 6 are identified in bold below:
A non-transitory storage medium storing a voting program using a distributed ledger for casting a vote to a vote-receiving account over a network, wherein the voting program causes a controller implemented by one or more processors of a server to:
generate a voting account for casting the vote;
issue a voting token to the voting account;
temporarily store, in a holding ledger provided in the server, transaction information of the voting token signed by using the voting account; and
broadcast the transaction information and recording the transaction information on the distributed ledger at an end of a predetermined period, that is, before a voting day, to allow re-voting by a user during the predetermined period, the distributed ledger provided separate from the server.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, B-C, and E recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claimed limitations can be grouped as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Generating a voting account for casting a vote and issuing a voting token to the voting account to allow for re-voting by a user during a predetermined period are analogous to registering to vote and providing a provisional ballot to cast a vote before a deadline.
Claim 6 recites at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 6 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
In limitation A, merely reciting a voting program that uses a holding ledger and a distributed ledger is general usage of a data structure. Furthermore, “a non-transitory storage medium storing a voting program,” “a network,” “a controller,” and “one or more processors of a server” have all been recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computing components. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere steps to implement an abstract idea on a data structure and mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements in limitations D-E are insignificant extra-solution activities because they do not meaningfully limit the voting program that generates a voting account for casting the vote and issues a voting token to the voting account. Storing, broadcasting, and recording the transaction information does not meaningfully limit how the voting account is generated and how a voting token is issued to the voting account. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. Furthermore, the additional elements in D-E are analogous to storing information in memory (Versata, “temporarily store transaction information”), transmitting data over a network (buySAFE, “broadcast the transaction information”), and electronic recordkeeping (Ultramercial, “record the transaction information”), which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Such limitations cannot provide an inventive concept.
In summary, claim 6 does not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, and/or applying/using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English machine translation of Fujimoto JP 2019095884 A (herein as “Fujimoto”) in view of Karro et al. WO 02/46883 (herein as “Karro”), and further in view of Deutsch et al. U.S. 2020/0357215 (herein as “Deutsch”).
Re Claim 1, Fujimoto discloses a voting system using a distributed ledger for voting by transferring a voting token from a voting account to a vote-receiving account over a network, the voting system comprising:
a program that causes a controller implemented by one or more processors of a server to (pg. 5, 1st paragraph – “an electronic voting program,” pg. 8, 7th paragraph – “The voting right management device 201 is, for example, a server, a PC (Personal Computer), or the like”):
issue a voting token to the voting account (pg. 8, 7th paragraph – “the voting right management device 201 transfers the voting token (i.e. issuing a voting token) to the voting token holding account (i.e. the voting account)”);
[…] transaction information for transferring the voting token from the voting account to the vote-receiving account (pg. 12, 2nd paragraph – “Voting token holding ledger Tx information 902 has fields of timestamp, TxID, Tx type, From account, To account…,”i.e. transaction information for transferring); and
record the transaction information held in the holding step on the distributed ledger […], the distributed ledger provided separate from the server (pg. 7, 8th paragraph –“the second device 110 can record in the second dispersion ledger 130 …that the voting token present in any of the accounts 104 has been voted for the account 105 representing the voting destination,” i.e. the transaction information, pg. 8, 6th paragraph – “The node 204 is a computer that implements any of the…voting token holding ledger 230,” “The voting token holding ledger 230 corresponds to the second dispersion ledger 130,” node 204 is separate from voting right management device 201, therefore, the second dispersion ledger 130, implemented by node 204, is separate from the voting right management device 201, i.e. server).
However, Fujimoto does not expressly disclose the limitations italicized below:
hold, in a holding ledger provided in the server, during a predetermined period, transaction information; and
record the transaction information at an end of the predetermined period.
Karro discloses an electronic voting system. Specifically, Karro discloses
hold, in a holding ledger provided in the server, during a predetermined period, transaction information (pg. 27, line 2 – “authenticator holds all votes till the end,” the time period during which one can vote is the predetermined period, pg. 12, line 20 – “data handling devices configured as authenticator,” i.e. holding ledger provided in the server, since the authenticator is holding the votes, it is considered a holding ledger, and a device configured as the authenticator is analogous to the server); and
record the transaction information at an end of the predetermined period (pg. 25, line 19 – “many lists are published at the end of the election,” i.e. an end of the predetermined period, publishing information suggests that the information has been recorded).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto’s electronic voting system with the teachings of holding votes during the election period and recording the votes at the end of the election period in Karro. One would be motivated to make this combination because it eliminates the threat of organizations buying votes since such organizations could not be guaranteed that the voter would not alter their vote after being paid Karro pg. 27, 2nd paragraph.
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro do not explicitly teach
the predetermined period is before a voting day.
Deutsch discloses voting systems and methods for processing provisional ballots. Specifically, Deutsch discloses
the predetermined period is before a voting day [0004] – “provisional ballots are provided to all voters who vote prior to election day, such as an early voting period or in-person absentee voting period.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto in view of Karro’s electronic voting system with the teachings of a predetermined period that is before a voting day in Deutsch. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide flexibility by allowing users who cannot vote on election day to vote prior to election day.
Re Claim 2, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 1, and Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein the program further causes the controller to:
hold the transaction information so as to be allowed to be overwritten during the predetermined period (Karro, pg. 27, 1st paragraph – “authenticator holds all votes till the end, to change a vote, the user just resubmits their vote,” resubmitting one’s vote is analogous to overwriting their original vote, i.e. the transaction information held).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto’s electronic voting system with the teachings of permitting voters to change their vote during election period in Karro. One would be motivated to make this combination because it eliminates the threat of organizations buying votes since such organizations could not be guaranteed that the voter would not alter their vote after being paid Karro pg. 27, 2nd paragraph.
Re Claim 4, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 1, and Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein
the transaction information is signed by using the voting account held by the controller (Karro, pg. 36, Voting Phase, Step 5 – “the voter then signs the encrypted version of the desired vote using his/her signature key,” “the voting account held by the controller” lacks antecedent basis, as noted above. Since claim 4 is dependent from claim 1, “the voting account held by the controller” is reasonably interpreted to be analogous to the voting account in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto’s electronic voting system with the teachings of the voter signing their desired vote using their signature key in Karro. One would be motivated to make this combination because it allows voters’ identities to be verified electronically Karro pg. 35, 4th paragraph, pg. 37, Step 8.
Re Claim 6, Fujimoto discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a voting program using a distributed ledger for casting a vote to a vote-receiving account over a network, wherein the voting program causes a controller implemented by one or more processors of a server to:
issue a voting token to the voting account (pg. 8, 7th paragraph – “the voting right management device 201 transfers the voting token (i.e. issuing a voting token) to the voting token holding account (i.e. the voting account)”);
[…] transaction information of the voting token […] (pg. 12, 2nd paragraph – “Voting token holding ledger Tx information 902 has fields of timestamp, TxID, Tx type, From account, To account…,”i.e. transaction information for transferring);
broadcast the transaction information and recording the transaction information on the distributed ledger […], the distributed ledger provided separate from the server (pg. 7, 8th paragraph –“the second device 110 can record in the second dispersion ledger 130 …that the voting token present in any of the accounts 104 has been voted for the account 105 representing the voting destination,” i.e. the transaction information, pg. 8, 6th paragraph – “The node 204 is a computer that implements any of the…voting token holding ledger 230,” “The voting token holding ledger 230 corresponds to the second dispersion ledger 130,” node 204 is separate from voting right management device 201, therefore, the second dispersion ledger 130, implemented by node 204, is separate from the voting right management device 201, i.e. server. Broadcasting is a well-known concept in blockchain technology. Recording transaction information onto the blockchain would require broadcasting to the other nodes within the blockchain network).
However, Fujimoto does not expressly disclose the limitations italicized below:
generate a voting account for casting the vote,
temporarily store, in a holding ledger provided in the server, transaction information of the voting token signed by using the voting account,
recording the transaction information at an end of a predetermined period, that is, to allow re-voting by a user during the predetermined period.
The repeated “that is…during the predetermined period” has been omitted for clarity.
Examiner notes that “to allow re-voting by a user during the predetermined period” is an intended result. An intended result is not given patentable weight because it does not meaningfully limit the claim. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided.
Karro discloses an electronic voting system. Specifically, Karro discloses
generate a voting account for casting the vote (pg. 17, Registration Phase – “In order to vote, a voter must first register with the registrar to identify himself as an eligible voter…Upon registering, the registrar assigns a unique identification number to the voter, places the voter’s name and ID in the registered voter list,” registering to vote is analogous to generating a voting account because under the broadest, most reasonable interpretation, generating an account encompasses creating a record that identifies an entity),
temporarily store, in a holding ledger provided in the server, transaction information of the voting token signed by using the voting account (pg. 27, line 2 – “authenticator holds all votes till the end,” line 3 – “The authenticator throws out the old vote and keeps the new one,” i.e. votes are stored temporarily, pg. 12, line 20 – “data handling devices configured as authenticator,” i.e. holding ledger provided in the server, since the authenticator is holding the votes, it is considered a holding ledger, and a device configured as the authenticator is analogous to the server, pg. 36, Voting Phase, Step 5 – “the voter then signs the encrypted version of the desired vote using his/her signature key”),
recording the transaction information at an end of a predetermined period, that is, to allow re-voting by a user during the predetermined period (pg. 25, 3rd paragraph – “many lists are published at the end of the election,” i.e. an end of a predetermined period, publishing information suggests that the information has been recorded, pg. 27, 1st paragraph – “authenticator holds all votes till the end, to change a vote, the user just resubmits their vote”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto’s electronic voting system with the teachings of registering voters, storing votes during the election period, and recording the votes at the end of the election period in Karro. One would be motivated to make this combination because it enables voters to be electronically verified Karro pg. 17, 3rd paragraph and eliminates the threat of organizations buying votes since such organizations could not be guaranteed that the voter would not alter their vote after being paid Karro pg. 27, 2nd paragraph.
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro do not explicitly teach
the predetermined period is before a voting day.
Deutsch discloses voting systems and methods for processing provisional ballots. Specifically, Deutsch discloses
the predetermined period is before a voting day [0004] – “provisional ballots are provided to all voters who vote prior to election day, such as an early voting period or in-person absentee voting period.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto in view of Karro’s electronic voting system with the teachings of a predetermined period that is before a voting day in Deutsch. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide flexibility by allowing users who cannot vote on election day to vote prior to election day.
Re Claim 8, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 2, and Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein
the transaction information is signed by using the voting account held by the controller (Karro, pg. 36, Voting Phase, Step 5 – “the voter then signs the encrypted version of the desired vote using his/her signature key,” “the voting account held by the controller” lacks antecedent basis, as noted above. Since claim 4 is dependent from claim 1, “the voting account held by the controller” is reasonably interpreted to be analogous to the voting account in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto’s electronic voting system with the teachings of the voter signing their desired vote using their signature key in Karro. One would be motivated to make this combination because it allows voters’ identities to be verified electronically Karro pg. 35, 4th paragraph, pg. 37, Step 8.
Re Claim 13, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 1, and Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein the program further cause the controller to initially hold initial data and later hold modified data, wherein the transaction information includes the modified data (Karro, pg. 27, lines 2-3 – “authenticator holds all votes till the end, to change a vote, the user just resubmits their vote. The authenticator throws out the old vote and keeps the new one,” holding the old vote is analogous to initially hold initial data and keeping the new vote is analogous to later hold modified data, line 6 – “The authenticator then sends the new vote to the counter,” i.e. transaction information includes the modified data).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto’s electronic voting system with the teachings of initially hold initial data and later hold modified data, wherein the transaction information includes the modified data in Karro. One would be motivated to make this combination because it eliminates the threat of organizations buying votes since such organizations could not be guaranteed that the voter would not alter their vote after being paid Karro pg. 27, 2nd paragraph.
Claims 3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English machine translation of Fujimoto JP 2019095884 A (herein as “Fujimoto”) in view of Karro et al. WO 02/46883 (herein as “Karro”), and in view of Deutsch et al. U.S. 2020/0357215 (herein as “Deutsch”) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Demarinis et al. U.S. 2017/0330174 (herein as “Demarinis”).
Re Claim 3, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 1, and Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein the program further causes the controller to:
associate the voting account with shareholder information of an owner of the voting account (Fujimoto, pg. 13, 3rd paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 stores various types of information…for example, correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) indicating the types and the number of voting tokens that can be voted for each attribute of a voter (i.e. owner),” pg. 8, 1st paragraph – “the account 104…is associated with a voter,” since the correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) is associated with the voter, this suggests that it is also associated with the account 104 (i.e. the voting account), pg. 12, last paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 is realized by, for example, a storage area such as the memory 302 or recording medium 305.”)
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch do not explicitly teach
the step of issuing voting token determines a number of voting tokens to be issued, on the basis of the shareholder information obtained in the voting account associating step.
Demarinis discloses systems and methods for recording ownership information in a distributed ledger. Specifically, Demarinis discloses
the step of issuing voting token determines a number of voting tokens to be issued, on the basis of the shareholder information obtained in the voting account associating step.
[0143] – “computer system 1112 determines the voting token distribution among the shareholders. The number of voting tokens to be allocated to a shareholder is determined based upon the number of shares and the vote ratio of that particular type of share.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch’s electronic voting system with the teachings of determining the number of voting tokens to allocate to a shareholder in Demarinis. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 7, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 2, and Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein the program further causes the controller to:
associate the voting account with shareholder information of an owner of the voting account (Fujimoto, pg. 13, 3rd paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 stores various types of information…for example, correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) indicating the types and the number of voting tokens that can be voted for each attribute of a voter (i.e. owner),” pg. 8, 1st paragraph – “the account 104…is associated with a voter,” since the correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) is associated with the voter, this suggests that it is also associated with the account 104 (i.e. the voting account), pg. 12, last paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 is realized by, for example, a storage area such as the memory 302 or recording medium 305”).
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch do not explicitly teach
the step of issuing the voting token determines a number of voting tokens to be issued, on the basis of the shareholder information.
Demarinis discloses systems and methods for recording ownership information in a distributed ledger. Specifically, Demarinis discloses
the step of issuing the voting token determines a number of voting tokens to be issued, on the basis of the shareholder information [0143] – “computer system 1112 determines the voting token distribution among the shareholders. The number of voting tokens to be allocated to a shareholder is determined based upon the number of shares and the vote ratio of that particular type of share.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch’s electronic voting system with the teachings of determining the number of voting tokens to allocate to a shareholder in Demarinis. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 9, Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Demarinis teach the voting system according to Claim 3, and Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Demarinis further teach wherein
the transaction information is signed by using the voting account held by the controller (Karro, pg. 36, Voting Phase, Step 5 – “the voter then signs the encrypted version of the desired vote using his/her signature key,” “the voting account held by the controller” lacks antecedent basis, as noted above. Since claim 4 is dependent from claim 1, “the voting account held by the controller” is reasonably interpreted to be analogous to the voting account in claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto’s electronic voting system with the teachings of the voter signing their desired vote using their signature key in Karro. One would be motivated to make this combination because it allows voters’ identities to be verified electronically Karro pg. 35, 4th paragraph, pg. 37, Step 8.
Claims 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English machine translation of Fujimoto JP 2019095884 A (herein as “Fujimoto”) in view of Karro et al. WO 02/46883 (herein as “Karro”), and in view of Deutsch et al. U.S. 2020/0357215 (herein as “Deutsch”) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of Malik et al. U.S. 2020/0134719 (herein as “Malik”).
Re Claim 5, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 1, and Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein the program further causes the controller to:
associate the voting account with shareholder information of an owner of the voting account (Fujimoto, pg. 13, 3rd paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 stores various types of information…for example, correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) indicating the types and the number of voting tokens that can be voted for each attribute of a voter (i.e. owner),” pg. 8, 1st paragraph – “the account 104…is associated with a voter,” since the correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) is associated with the voter, this suggests that it is also associated with the account 104 (i.e. the voting account), pg. 12, last paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 is realized by, for example, a storage area such as the memory 302 or recording medium 305”).
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro, and Deutsch do not explicitly teach
the step of issuing the voting token generates a plurality of voting accounts of the owner on the basis of the shareholder information.
Malik discloses a system for operating a distributed ledger implementation for tracking and monitoring entity shares. Specifically, Malik discloses
the step of issuing the voting token generates a plurality of voting accounts of the owner on the basis of the shareholder information [0034] – “The shareholders may have different voting rights (i.e. shareholder information),” [0083] – “the entity 412 may create multiple wallets (i.e. plurality of voting accounts) designed for different voting rights.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto in view of Karro, and Deutsch’s electronic voting system with the teachings of creating multiple wallets designed for different voting rights of a shareholder in Malik. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 10, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 2, and Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein the program further causes the controller to:
associate the voting account with shareholder information of an owner of the voting account (Fujimoto, pg. 13, 3rd paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 stores various types of information…for example, correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) indicating the types and the number of voting tokens that can be voted for each attribute of a voter (i.e. owner),” pg. 8, 1st paragraph – “the account 104…is associated with a voter,” since the correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) is associated with the voter, this suggests that it is also associated with the account 104 (i.e. the voting account), pg. 12, last paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 is realized by, for example, a storage area such as the memory 302 or recording medium 305”).
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch do not explicitly teach
the step of issuing the voting token generates a plurality of voting accounts of the owner on the basis of the shareholder information.
Malik discloses a system for operating a distributed ledger implementation for tracking and monitoring entity shares. Specifically, Malik discloses
the step of issuing the voting token generates a plurality of voting accounts of the owner on the basis of the shareholder information [0034] – “The shareholders may have different voting rights (i.e. shareholder information),” [0083] – “the entity 412 may create multiple wallets (i.e. plurality of voting accounts) designed for different voting rights.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch’s electronic voting system with the teachings of creating multiple wallets designed for different voting rights of a shareholder in Malik. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 12, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 4, and Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein the program further causes the controller to:
associate the voting account with shareholder information of an owner of the voting account (Fujimoto, pg. 13, 3rd paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 stores various types of information…for example, correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) indicating the types and the number of voting tokens that can be voted for each attribute of a voter (i.e. owner),” pg. 8, 1st paragraph – “the account 104…is associated with a voter,” since the correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) is associated with the voter, this suggests that it is also associated with the account 104 (i.e. the voting account), pg. 12, last paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 is realized by, for example, a storage area such as the memory 302 or recording medium 305”).
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch do not explicitly teach
the step of issuing the voting token generates a plurality of voting accounts of the owner on the basis of the shareholder information.
Malik discloses a system for operating a distributed ledger implementation for tracking and monitoring entity shares. Specifically, Malik discloses
the step of issuing the voting token generates a plurality of voting accounts of the owner on the basis of the shareholder information [0034] – “The shareholders may have different voting rights (i.e. shareholder information),” [0083] – “the entity 412 may create multiple wallets (i.e. plurality of voting accounts) designed for different voting rights.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch’s electronic voting system with the teachings of creating multiple wallets designed for different voting rights of a shareholder in Malik. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English machine translation of Fujimoto JP 2019095884 A (herein as “Fujimoto”) in view of Karro et al. WO 02/46883 (herein as “Karro”), in view of Deutsch et al. U.S. 2020/0357215 (herein as “Deutsch”), and in view of Demarinis et al. U.S. 2017/0330174 (herein as “Demarinis”) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Malik et al. U.S. 2020/0134719 (herein as “Malik”).
Re Claim 11, Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Demarinis teach the voting system according to Claim 3, and Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Demarinis further teach wherein the program further causes the controller to:
associate the voting account with shareholder information of an owner of the voting account (Fujimoto, pg. 13, 3rd paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 stores various types of information…for example, correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) indicating the types and the number of voting tokens that can be voted for each attribute of a voter (i.e. owner),” pg. 8, 1st paragraph – “the account 104…is associated with a voter,” since the correspondence information (i.e. shareholder information) is associated with the voter, this suggests that it is also associated with the account 104 (i.e. the voting account), pg. 12, last paragraph – “The first storage unit 1110 is realized by, for example, a storage area such as the memory 302 or recording medium 305”).
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Demarinis do not explicitly teach
the step of issuing the voting token generates a plurality of voting accounts of the owner on the basis of the shareholder information.
Malik discloses a system for operating a distributed ledger implementation for tracking and monitoring entity shares. Specifically, Malik discloses
the step of issuing the voting token generates a plurality of voting accounts of the owner on the basis of the shareholder information [0034] – “The shareholders may have different voting rights (i.e. shareholder information),” [0083] – “the entity 412 may create multiple wallets (i.e. plurality of voting accounts) designed for different voting rights.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Demarinis’ electronic voting system with the teachings of creating multiple wallets designed for different voting rights of a shareholder in Malik. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698