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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 11 have been amended. Claims 4, 6-8, 10, and 12 have been canceled. Claims 14-17 are new. Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, and 13-17 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/20/2026, to claim 1 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 02/24/2026. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 2-3, 5, 9, 11, and 13-17 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 4, 6-8, 10, and 12 has rendered the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of these respective claims moot.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/20/2026, to claims 3 and 9 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 02/24/2026. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 3, 9, and 11 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 4, 8, and 12 has rendered the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of these respective claims moot.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 6 has rendered the claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 6, set forth in the Non-Final Rejection 02/24/2026, moot.
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks on pg. 11-12, Examiner has already recognized that Fujimoto (English machine translation of Fujimoto JP 2019095884) does not disclose or suggest holding, in the voting right management device 201, during a predetermined period, the transaction information. Karro et al. WO 02/46883 was introduced to remedy such deficiency. Applicant’s remarks appear to be attacking Fujimoto individually for not disclosing what the Non-Final Rejection 02/24/2026 has already stated it does not disclose. In response to the Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The remarks against the provided rationale for combining Fujimoto in view of Karro is not persuasive because modifying Fujimoto’s system to specifically hold the votes in the server until the end is an improvement that would eliminate the threat of buying votes since the votes held in the server are not yet officially recorded, thereby permitting voters to change their vote. Modification of a prior art to arrive at a different arrangement from the prior art is necessitated when the prior art alone does not disclose such arrangement. In other words, combining prior art references to arrive at a different arrangement than the primary reference is often the purpose of the combination. The remarks have not provided any substantive evidence as to why the modified arrangement of Fujimoto in view of Karro would not work. The remarks provide a mere conclusory statement stating that the rationale does not provide motivation to combine without providing any further substantive evidence other than paraphrasing the claim language. Paraphrasing the claim language without reasons establishing nonobviousness does not constitute sufficient evidence against the combination. Applicant’s remarks have also not provided any substantive remarks against Deutsch et al. U.S. 2020/0357215. Therefore, no further remarks need to be addressed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“one or more processors of a server to” in lines 8-9 should be “one or more processors of the
“by using a private key” in line 17 should be “by using the
“previously held” in line 22 should be “the previously held”
“the transaction information” in line 24 should be “the transaction information corresponding to the latest vote”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 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 mobile terminal being in communication with a server over the network and having a voting application, the voting application configured to receive login information of a user and, […] (pg. 8, 9th paragraph – “The terminal device 203 is a computer that can be used by voters…for example, a server, a PC, a tablet terminal, a smartphone or the like, 4th paragraph – “the voting right management device 201 and the terminal device 203 are connected via a wired or wireless network,” pg. 16, 7th paragraph – “For authentication (logging into an electronic voting portal site on the terminal device)…a basic password authentication method using a combination of a voter ID and a passphrase can be used,” i.e. login information, pg. 12, 5th paragraph – “The program stored in the memory 1002…to execute coded processing,” the program is on the terminal device, i.e. voting application); and
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 by identifying the voting account based on the login information, […] and transferring the 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, pg. 16, 7th paragraph – “For authentication…a basic password authentication method using a combination of a voter ID and a passphrase can be used,” 8th paragraph – “the terminal device 203 displays a voting token issuance procedure…for “issue voting token,” in response to a successful authentication using the voter ID and passphrase, i.e. login information);
receive a vote transaction from the mobile terminal pg. 16, 9th paragraph – “the terminal device 203 transmits a voting token transfer request including the input voter ID to the voting right management device 201”;
[…] transaction information including the vote transaction 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 including the vote transaction (input voter ID is analogous to From account) for transferring), the vote transaction being signed by using a private key that corresponds to the voting account (pg. 18, 9th paragraph – “the voting token transfer request including…the electronic signature based on the secret key,” 3rd paragraph – “acquires account address and the secret key,” thereby suggesting the secret key, i.e. private key, is associated with the account); and
record the transaction information […] on the distributed ledger […] by transmitting the transaction information to 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. 18, last paragraph – “transmits a request for recording the voting token holding ledger Tx information 2600 to the node 204,” pg. 13, 7th paragraph – “The recording request includes, for example, information used for generation of voting right ledger Tx 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:
in response to proper login using the login information, generate the voting account including a private key and a public key;
checking whether the user has not yet performed voting,
hold, in the server, during a predetermined period, transaction information; and
when re-voting is performed during the predetermined period:
receive a re-voting transaction from the mobile terminal; and
save, in the server, the re-voting transaction signed by using the private key so as to overwrite previously held transaction information with transaction information corresponding to a latest vote;
read, at an end of the predetermined period, the transaction information held in the server; and
record the transaction information held in the server on the distributed ledger at an end of the predetermined period.
Karro discloses an electronic voting system. Specifically, Karro discloses
in response to proper login using the login information, generate the voting account including a private key and a public key (pg. 17, line 13 – “The authenticator generates a unique pair of public/private keys for the ID it received,” for the ID it received is analogous to “in response to proper login using the login information” since the ID is, similar to the login information, information presented for authentication);
checking whether the user has not yet performed voting pg. 4, line 31 – “verifies that the signature s belongs to a registered voter I who has not yet voted,”
hold, 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. hold in the server, a device configured as the authenticator is analogous to the server); and
when re-voting is performed during the predetermined period (pg. 27, lines 1-2 – “Voters may be allowed to change their vote…authenticator holds all votes till the end,” thereby suggesting the period voters can change their vote until the end is the predetermined period):
receive a re-voting transaction from the mobile terminal pg. 27, line 2 – “the user just resubmits their vote”; and
save, in the server, the re-voting transaction signed by using the private key so as to overwrite previously held transaction information with transaction information corresponding to a latest vote pg. 27, line 3 – “The authenticator throws out the old vote and keeps the new one,” pg. 36, lines 21-22 – “The voter then signs the encrypted version of the desired vote using his/her signature key Priv_KeyID;
read, at an end of the predetermined period, the transaction information held in the server pg. 27, line 2 – “authenticator holds all votes till the end,” pg. 38, lines 9-10 – “announces the election results”; and
record the transaction information held in the server on the distributed ledger 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, pg. 27, line 2 – “authenticator holds all votes till the end,” held in the server).
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, receiving and saving a re-vote, and reading 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 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 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 claim 1 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
wherein 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
wherein 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 Karro, pg. 36, Voting Phase, Step 5 – “the voter then signs the encrypted version of the desired vote using his/her signature key.”
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 and 14-15 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 claim 1 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
wherein 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
wherein 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 14, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 1, however, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch do not explicitly teach wherein the voting account is one of a plurality of voting accounts of a single user, and the vote transaction is signed by using a plurality of private keys corresponding to the plurality of voting accounts of the single user.
Malik discloses a system for operating a distributed ledger implementation for tracking and monitoring entity shares. Specifically, Malik discloses
wherein the voting account is one of a plurality of voting accounts of a single user ([0083] – “the entity 412 may create multiple wallets (i.e. plurality of voting accounts) designed for different voting rights”), and the vote transaction is signed by using a plurality of private keys corresponding to the plurality of voting accounts of the single user (Fig. 12 – O(1) Private Key and O(2) Private Key, Fig. 4 – entity, i.e. single user, can have multiple entity member(s) each with a wallet and keypair, i.e. plurality of private keys corresponding to the plurality of voting accounts).
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 multiple wallets of an entity, each wallet associated with a keypair that can be used to sign a transaction 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 15, Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Malik teach the voting system according to Claim 14, and Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Malik further teach wherein the program further causes the controller to associate the plurality of voting accounts with shareholder information of an owner of the plurality of voting accounts, and to generate the plurality of voting accounts on a basis of the shareholder information (Malik, [0034] – “The shareholders may have different voting rights (i.e. shareholder information),” [0083] – “the entity 412 may create multiple wallets (i.e. generate the plurality of voting accounts) designed for different voting rights,” thereby suggesting each shareholder, i.e. owner, that have different voting rights have multiple wallets, i.e. plurality of voting accounts associated with shareholder information of an owner).
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, however, Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Demarinis do not explicitly teach wherein the program further causes the controller to:
generate 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
generate 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. generate a 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.
Claim 16 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”), and in view of Deutsch et al. U.S. 2020/0357215 (herein as “Deutsch”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demarinis et al. U.S. 2017/0330174 (herein as “Demarinis”) and Sathiaraj U.S. 2019/0205770.
Re Claim 16, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch teach the voting system according to Claim 1, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch further teach wherein, […] the program causes the controller to check the signed vote transaction saved in the server against an electronic signature […] (Fujimoto, pg. 18, 10th paragraph – “The vote management device 202 confirms the legitimacy of the electronic signature included in the vote transfer request”).
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro and Deutsch do not explicitly teach the limitations italicized below:
check the signed vote transaction saved in the server against a number of shares of the user.
Demarinis discloses systems and methods for recording ownership information in a distributed ledger. Specifically, Demarinis discloses
check the signed vote transaction saved in the server against a number of shares of the user ([0080] – “The shareholding list 502 for a particular type of shares…may be obtained by computer system 402 (i.e. checked)…and includes a timestamped list of all shareholders who owned any number of the particular share type”).
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 checking against a number of shares in Demarinis. One would be motivated to make the combination to ensure highly reliable voting operations, thereby allowing shareholders to represent their shares remotely without having to be physical present at shareholder meetings Demarinis, [0186].
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro, Deutsch, and Demarinis do not explicitly teach
in a provisional voting state in which the user finishes voting and the predetermined period does not yet end, to thereby display vote results in the provisional voting state.
Sathiaraj discloses a predictive analytical system and method. Specifically, Sathiaraj discloses
in a provisional voting state in which the user finishes voting and the predetermined period does not yet end, to thereby display vote results in the provisional voting state ([0028] – “display past election results,” [0020] – “aggregate static and historical voter specific information,” i.e. checking historical data, or saved data, to thereby display the past election results, [0093] – “Predicting vote counts before an election,” i.e. in a provisional voting state and the predetermined period does not yet end. The prediction is based on aggregated static and historical data [0069], i.e. the user has already voted).
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 displaying vote results in the provisional voting state in Sathiaraj. One would be motivated to make the combination to enable proper resource allocation to maximize vote count Sathiaraj, [0092].
Claim 17 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”), and in view of Deutsch et al. U.S. 2020/0357215 (herein as “Deutsch”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feig U.S. 2015/0100392.
Re Claim 17, 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, in the agenda storage unit (Fujimoto, pg. 21, 7th paragraph – “a storage area” of the voting right management device 201), vote-receiving accounts to which the voting token is cast for a vote in favor and vote-receiving accounts to which the voting token is cast for a vote against are respectively saved as addresses (Fujimoto, pg. 21, 6th paragraph – “calculates the number of voting tokens voted for each voting destination account representing the voting destination,” pg. 18, 2nd paragraph – “account address indicating the voting token holding account to which the voting token has been transferred,” thereby suggesting accounts that can receive the voting tokens are saved as addresses).
However, Fujimoto in view of Karro, and Deutsch do not explicitly teach
wherein the server includes an agenda storage unit that functions as vote-receiving accounts and is used to store a plurality of agenda items.
Feig discloses dynamic ballots for voting. Specifically, Feig discloses
wherein the server includes an agenda storage unit that functions as vote-receiving accounts and is used to store a plurality of agenda items ([0030] – “The program in the server…sets up the necessary tables in the database to store data for this poll…records one vote for the initial candidate and that the user has cast a vote for this ballot,” therefore, the database of the server is analogous to the agenda storage unit, which stores poll data, i.e. agenda items, and votes, i.e. functions as vote-receiving accounts).
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 a database of a server that stores votes and agenda items in Feig. 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights