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 .
Priority
This application claims foreign priority to application KR10-2023-0088698, filed on 07/07/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication received on 10/01/2025.
Status of the Claims
This is a FINAL Office Action rejection prepared in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on
10/01/2025.
Claims 1-3 and 16-17 are amended.
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Claims 28-32 are withdrawn.
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 1-27 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 1 recites “…wherein verification is confirmed when a) the hash data transmitted by the user terminal to the blockchain network with the token and b) the hash data stored in the database server which was generated in the voting control server based on the vote data and the salt data match each other, otherwise the vote data is fraudulent vote data not counted.” It is unclear which one of the positively recited structural components is the one responsible for the function (i.e., verification) or whether the expression is attempting to further limit the “verify” performed by the verification server .
Claim 16 recites “…confirming a) the hash data transmitted by the user terminal to the blockchain network with the token and b) the hash data stored in the database server which was generated in a voting control server based on the vote data and the salt data match each other…” is ambiguous. It is unclear what exactly is being confirmed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting claim 16 as “confirming whether the hash data transmitted by the user terminal to the blockchain network with the token matches the hash data stored in the database server…”.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “…otherwise the vote data is fraudulent vote data not counted.” is unclear. One in the ordinary skills in the art cannot determine the intended meaning of the phrase with reasonable certainty. As written the phrase is grammatically awkward and open to multiple interpretations rendering the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-15 and 17-27 are also rejected as they depend from either claims 1 or 16.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 are directed to a system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 16-27 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of
invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a
judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 16, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
An operating method of a token voting system using a blockchain network, the operating method comprising:
generating hash data based on a) vote data received from a user terminal and b) salt data randomized for encryption, in response to a voting request of the user terminal;
storing the vote data, status information about the vote data, and the hash data in a database server;
providing the hash data to the user terminal;
checking a transaction generated by the user terminal
transmitting the hash data and a token to the blockchain network;
setting the status information according to a check result of the transaction; and
confirming a) the hash data transmitted by the user terminal to the blockchain network with the token and b) the hash data stored in the database server which was generated in a voting control server based on the vote data and the salt data match each other, otherwise the vote data is fraudulent vote data not counted.
Claim 16, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method of managing and verifying voting data by collecting and validating information (vote data), generating a hash of the data, storing the hashed data for later use in generating results, and verifying and updating the status of the vote data. Claim 1 is significantly similar to claim 16. As such claim 1 also recites an abstract idea. Specifically, but for the additional elements, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.)
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of a token voting system, a blockchain network, a database server, a voting control server, a monitoring server, a verification server and a user terminal merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-15 and 17-27 have also been analyzed for subject matter
eligibility. However, claims 2-15 and 17-27 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the
following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the voting control server is configured to, in response to the voting request, generate the hash data using the vote data and the salt data randomized for encryption, and store the salt data in the database server.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a voting control server and a database server to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 3 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the vote data comprises data corresponding to an option determined by the user terminal among a plurality of options
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a user terminal to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 4 and 18 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the status information indicates any one of a created state, a committed state, and a finalized state of the vote data.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 5 and 19 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the voting control server is configured to, when the vote data is stored in the database server, set the status information to the created state.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a voting control server and a database server to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 6 and 20 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the monitoring server is configured to, when the transaction is checked, set the status information to the committed state.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a monitoring server to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 7 and 21 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the verification server is configured to, when a counting of the vote data is completed in the blockchain network, set the status information to the finalized state.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a verification server and a blockchain network to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 8 and 22 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the monitoring server is configured to compare data stored in each of the blockchain network and the database server to check whether there is an omission of a vote.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a monitoring server, a database server and a blockchain network to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 9 and 23 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the verification server is configured to, if there is no omission of the vote, provide the vote data received from the database server and salt data to the blockchain network to verify the vote data.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a verification server, a database server and a blockchain network to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 10 and 24 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the verification server is configured to, when a counting of the vote data is completed in the blockchain network, receive a vote result from the blockchain network and store the vote result in the database server.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a verification server, a database server and a blockchain network to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 11 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the database server is configured to provide the vote result to the user terminal in response to a vote result request received from the user terminal.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a user terminal and a database server to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 12 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
information about the token comprises digital content information and token identification information.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a voting control server and a database server to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “digital” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 13 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the token identification information is visualized and displayed on a tangible object.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 14 and 26 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the token identification information is converted into a barcode or QR code and displayed on the tangible object.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 15 and 27 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the token identification information comprises uniform resource locator (URL) information indicating an address where the token is stored.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 17 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the generating of the hash data comprises generating the hash data using the vote data and the salt data randomized for encryption, and the vote data comprises data corresponding to an option determined by the user terminal among a plurality of options.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a user terminal to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 25 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
information about the token comprises digital content information and token identification information visualized and displayed on a tangible object.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a voting control server and a database server to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional element “digital” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, 12-14, 16, 18-20 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami (US 2020/0258338 A1) in view of Ebrahimi (US 20180227130 A1), in further view of Colemen (US 2009/0248533 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16 Goswami discloses:
storing the vote data, status information about the vote data, and the hash data in a database server; (Goswami ¶0066, In some embodiments, databases 150 can also contain a voter-ballot database 154. The voter-ballot database 154 stores the electronic completed ballots submitted by the voters. In some embodiments, the voter-ballot database 154 can also contain ballots submitted by voters, either via electronic voting through a mobile app or website as described further below, through a mailed ballot, or from a voting machine at a polling place. In some embodiments, the record of votes includes information gathered by a particular state or county's database. In some embodiments, the voter-ballot database 154 can determine or store information regarding whether if a particular voter has voted more than once based on the identifier received with each ballot or which is associated with each ballot. For example, the voter-ballot database can determine that a particular voter voted both at polling place by receiving a voting identifier from a voting machine at a polling place and by the identifier received a mail-in ballot. The voting can remain anonymous, and only the comparison or match between identifiers will be noted. Goswami ¶0112, The choices can be stored in a “voter ballot” internal database in user interface 131 until they are ready to be submitted… The ballot choices are saved in the voter-ballot off-chain database 154 along with voter ID, ballot barcode or other computer or machine-readable identifier, hash of the digitally stored ballot, and timestamp. Goswami ¶0128, This hash is then stored on the verification contract database 1409 as part of a blockchain. In some embodiments, the hash can also be transmitted to neutral third-party location to provide an additional level of security for the system. At the same time, the blockchain abstraction layer 1402 stores the data in the database 1503. In some embodiments, the data is stored in any of the databases 150 described above or in the voting databases 1404, or any other database that the blockchain abstraction layer 1402 can use to store data.)
providing the hash data to the user terminal; (Goswami ¶0012, the blockchain access layer is further configured to send the hash of the ballot selections and the electronic signature to the user operated mobile computing device or to the election official system. Goswami ¶0129, In some embodiments, when any client device, such as applications 1401 and 1403, then reads data from blockchain abstraction layer 1402, the blockchain abstraction layer 1402 can read the data from the database 1503 and also retrieve the hash from verification contract database 1409 and transmit the data to the client device.)
checking a transaction generated by the user terminal transmitting the hash data and a token to the blockchain network; and (Goswami ¶0051, In some embodiments, the entities also include parity authorities 112a-c. Parity authorities 112a-c act as validators for the transactions entered onto the block, ensuring that the transactions accurately reflect what happened.)
confirming a) the hash data transmitted by the user terminal to the blockchain network with the token and b) the hash data stored in the database server which was generated in a voting control server based on the vote data and the salt data match each other, otherwise the vote data is fraudulent vote data not counted. (Goswami ¶0129, In some embodiments, when any client device, such as applications 1401 and 1403, then reads data from blockchain abstraction layer 1402, the blockchain abstraction layer 1402 can read the data from the database 1503 and also retrieve the hash from verification contract database 1409 and transmit the data to the client device. Then the client device can calculate its own hash of the transmitted data and compare it the hash of the data it received to determine if the data has been altered. If the calculated hash and the received hash do not match, a flag or error can be generated to indicate that data has been altered, corrupted, tampered with, or can identify another problem. Goswami ¶0130, In some embodiment, the hash comparison can occur whenever data is retrieved by the system. Goswami ¶0132, …an application attempting to display the accurate ballot or an auditor wishing to validate the integrity of the ballot can simply compare the verification hash on the ballot and compare it to the has of the presented ballots on the voters' devices. Goswami ¶0133, A ballot presentment check can include retrieving verification hashes independently from any of the 3rd party locations and compared against the hash computed on the ballot that the application is about to present. In case of any difference between the hashes, the app can signal a possible variance in the ballot content integrity. An auditor can compare the hashes of the possible ballot styles and sample the hashes of ballots presented to voters from various precincts and find a match. Any instance of incorrect ballot presentment instances can be identified and flagged.)
Goswami does not disclose, however Ebrahimi teaches:
generating hash data based on a)vote data received from a user terminal and b) salt data randomized for encryption, in response to a voting request of the user terminal; (Ebrahimi ¶0007, The method includes hashing the data combined with the salt using a certification hash algorithm to create a generated hashed data. Ebrahimi ¶0037, Each field is then processed to produce a hash of the data. Optionally, to further obfuscate the original data, the hash can be produced of the original data along with a paired random data to prevent brute-force discovery of the hashed data; in this case, to validate the hash, the data and the random data (e.g., salt) must always be used together. Ebrahimi ¶0043, In each reference of hashing data, optionally a Salt is added to the data before hashing to obfuscate the data further. Ebrahimi ¶0066, application of a salt value to a corresponding certification would ensure that the certification is obfuscated from discovery, such as through a brute force discovery process. This is because the salt value is virtually impossible to discover without disclosure from a holder of the salt value. Ebrahimi ¶0082, In particular, a salt generator 471 generates a salt value, and combines the above information (e.g., transaction number 432, the input data—or selected fields of the input data—received from the user, and, optionally, a timestamp) with the salt value when generating the certification record. For example, the salt value may be appended to the data, or added to the data, or concatenated with the data, etc. The salt value or salt may be unique value, such as a random number generated by a random number generator. Ebrahimi ¶0083, In addition, the certification record (including the salt value) might be hashed and digitally signed by the certifier using a private key of the certifier associated with a public key.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami with the teaching of Ebrahimi. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to obfuscate the data even further.
The combination of Goswami and Ebrahimi do not disclose, however Colemen teaches:
setting the status information according to a check result of the transaction; and (Colemen ¶0132, The transaction record may include a data field relating to the status of the transaction, which may also be used as an index. When the transaction is first recorded in the transaction database 126 as a transaction record, generally the status data field is set to open. That is, the transaction system 114, and in particular record module 122, identifies the transaction recorded in the transaction database 126 as an open transaction.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of the combination of Goswami and Ebrahimi with the teaching of Colemen. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to ensure synchronization between off-chain vote data and on-chain transaction status. The combination would provide a predictable and straightforward result of improving vote integrity and auditability by recording the transaction status in the vote data.
Further, the claim limitation “generating hash data based on a)vote data received from a user terminal and b) salt data randomized for encryption” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen further disclose:
generate the hash data using the vote data and the salt data randomized for encryption, and (Ebrahimi ¶0007, The method includes hashing the data combined with the salt using a certification hash algorithm to create a generated hashed data. Ebrahimi ¶0037, Each field is then processed to produce a hash of the data. Optionally, to further obfuscate the original data, the hash can be produced of the original data along with a paired random data to prevent brute-force discovery of the hashed data; in this case, to validate the hash, the data and the random data (e.g., salt) must always be used together. Ebrahimi ¶0043, In each reference of hashing data, optionally a Salt is added to the data before hashing to obfuscate the data further. Ebrahimi ¶0066, application of a salt value to a corresponding certification would ensure that the certification is obfuscated from discovery, such as through a brute force discovery process. This is because the salt value is virtually impossible to discover without disclosure from a holder of the salt value. Ebrahimi ¶0082, In particular, a salt generator 471 generates a salt value, and combines the above information (e.g., transaction number 432, the input data—or selected fields of the input data—received from the user, and, optionally, a timestamp) with the salt value when generating the certification record. For example, the salt value may be appended to the data, or added to the data, or concatenated with the data, etc. The salt value or salt may be unique value, such as a random number generated by a random number generator. Ebrahimi ¶0083, In addition, the certification record (including the salt value) might be hashed and digitally signed by the certifier using a private key of the certifier associated with a public key.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen with the teaching of Ebrahimi. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to obfuscate the data even further.
The combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen further disclose,
store the (Goswami ¶0128, This hash is then stored on the verification contract database 1409 as part of a blockchain. In some embodiments, the hash can also be transmitted to neutral third-party location to provide an additional level of security for the system. At the same time, the blockchain abstraction layer 1402 stores the data in the database 1503. In some embodiments, the data is stored in any of the databases 150 described above or in the voting databases 1404, or any other database that the blockchain abstraction layer 1402 can use to store data)
While Goswami does not explicitly state that the salt data is store in the database, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store the salt data in the same way as the other data (hash data, voter data. etc.) is stored in the database in order to maintain a record to use for validation of the hash data.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen further discloses:
the status information indicates any one of a created state, a committed state, and a finalized state of the vote data. (Colemen ¶0074, The record module may record the transaction in a transaction database 126 and identify the status of the transaction. Colemen ¶0132, The transaction record may include a data field relating to the status of the transaction, which may also be used as an index.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen with Colemen’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to provide more granular tracking and a life cycle management of the vote data which is a well-known design principle used in distributed systems to represent the progressive verification and confirmation of digital data (vote data).
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “the status information indicates any one of a created state, a committed state, and a finalized state of the vote data” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen further discloses:
the voting control server is configured to, when the vote data is stored in the database server, set the status information to the created state. (Colemen ¶0132, When the transaction is first recorded in the transaction database 126 as a transaction record, generally the status data field is set to open.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen with Colemen’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to distinguish the vote data in the initial or created state from vote data in other stages of the transaction which is a standard practice in blockchain systems used to track data life cycles.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “set the status information to the created state” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen further discloses:
the status information is set to the committed state when the transaction is checked. (Colemen ¶0145, For example, a reply message authorizing or confirming the transaction request may include Y as a reply text. In response, the record module 122 may set to the status of the transaction record to authorized or confirmed, in addition or in alternative to closed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen with Colemen’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to distinguish the vote data after it is checked from vote data in other stages of the transaction which is a standard practice in blockchain systems used to track data life cycles.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “the status information is set to the committed state when the transaction is checked” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen further discloses:
information about the token comprises digital content information and token identification. (Goswami ¶0044, The system can verify the identity of the voter and create a pseudo-anonymous token in the form of a unique identifier that represents the voter… In some embodiments, the machine-readable identifier is a United States Postal Service Electronic Postmark (EPM®), or is a code or identifier associated with an EPM®. The paper ballot having the identifier thereon can then be mailed to the voter that corresponds to that token. Goswami ¶0116, The EPM 132 can then generate a particular electronic barcode associated with that voter. In some embodiments, the EPM 132 can also generate special coding identifiers, such as bar codes, that represent identifying information about the voter, such as state, voter ID, issuer, voter residence, voter mailing address, age, sex, birth, education level, etc. In some embodiments, the special coding identifiers and electronic barcode are then printed on a special form used as part of the verification process. These forms can also be electronically signed and dated by the system and the state issuing the form. Goswami ¶0118, This registration can include a voter signature, such as an image of a voter's electronically captured hand-written signature, for the election official to store and use to authenticate ballots and voters. The signature object can be a bitmap created within the VBM application. Once the voter has registered with the appropriate election authority, the voter can then receive authorization that allows them download and install the application. In some embodiments, this authorization can be a ballot access token.)
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “…comprises digital content information and token identification” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen further discloses:
the token identification information is visualized and displayed on a tangible object. (Goswami ¶0044, In some embodiments, the machine-readable identifier is a United States Postal Service Electronic Postmark (EPM®), or is a code or identifier associated with an EPM®. The paper ballot having the identifier thereon can then be mailed to the voter that corresponds to that token. Goswami ¶0116, The EPM 132 can then generate a particular electronic barcode associated with that voter. In some embodiments, the EPM 132 can also generate special coding identifiers, such as bar codes, that represent identifying information about the voter, such as state, voter ID, issuer, voter residence, voter mailing address, age, sex, birth, education level, etc. In some embodiments, the special coding identifiers and electronic barcode are then printed on a special form used as part of the verification process. These forms can also be electronically signed and dated by the system and the state issuing the form. Goswami ¶0117, Once the voter's identification has been verified, the voter can then go to the polls where, a polling worker can confirm the voter's identity. The poll worker can then issue a special electronic postmarked stamped voting card. The voting card can be taken to the polling machine, where it is inserted. Goswami ¶0118, In some embodiments, this authorization can be a ballot access token. A voter can receive a ballot access token from the VBM application or from the system. In some embodiments, the ballot access token is included on a physical document that is mailed to the specific voter.)
Regarding claims 14 and 26, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen further discloses:
the token identification information is converted into a barcode or QR code and displayed on the tangible object. (Goswami ¶0044, In some embodiments, the vote by mail system then generates a paper ballot that is printed with a QR code, barcode, or other computer or machine-readable identifier that represents the token. Goswami ¶0116, he EPM 132 can then generate a particular electronic barcode associated with that voter. In some embodiments, the EPM 132 can also generate special coding identifiers, such as bar codes, that represent identifying information about the voter, such as state, voter ID, issuer, voter residence, voter mailing address, age, sex, birth, education level, etc. In some embodiments, the special coding identifiers and electronic barcode are then printed on a special form used as part of the verification process. Goswami ¶0118, The ballot access token can be a QR code or other computer readable code which allows the voter to access the ballot on the VBM application when scanned.)
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen further discloses:
information about the token comprises digital content information and token identification information visualized and displayed on a tangible object. (Goswami ¶0044, The system can verify the identity of the voter and create a pseudo-anonymous token in the form of a unique identifier that represents the voter… In some embodiments, the machine-readable identifier is a United States Postal Service Electronic Postmark (EPM®), or is a code or identifier associated with an EPM®. The paper ballot having the identifier thereon can then be mailed to the voter that corresponds to that token. Goswami ¶0116, The EPM 132 can then generate a particular electronic barcode associated with that voter. In some embodiments, the EPM 132 can also generate special coding identifiers, such as bar codes, that represent identifying information about the voter, such as state, voter ID, issuer, voter residence, voter mailing address, age, sex, birth, education level, etc. In some embodiments, the special coding identifiers and electronic barcode are then printed on a special form used as part of the verification process. These forms can also be electronically signed and dated by the system and the state issuing the form. Goswami ¶0117, Once the voter's identification has been verified, the voter can then go to the polls where, a polling worker can confirm the voter's identity. The poll worker can then issue a special electronic postmarked stamped voting card. The voting card can be taken to the polling machine, where it is inserted. Goswami ¶0118, This registration can include a voter signature, such as an image of a voter's electronically captured hand-written signature, for the election official to store and use to authenticate ballots and voters. The signature object can be a bitmap created within the VBM application. Once the voter has registered with the appropriate election authority, the voter can then receive authorization that allows them download and install the application. In some embodiments, this authorization can be a ballot access token. A voter can receive a ballot access token from the VBM application or from the system. In some embodiments, the ballot access token is included on a physical document that is mailed to the specific voter.)
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “information about the token comprises digital content information and token identification information visualized and displayed on a tangible object” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Claim 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami, Colemen and Ebrahim as applied to claim 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Spanos (US 9,836,908 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Goswami, Colemen and Ebrahimi do not disclose, however Spanos teaches:
the vote data comprises data corresponding to an option determined by the user terminal among a plurality of options (Spanos col 2 lines 60-61, receive voting data comprising one or more votes for one or more candidates in an election. See claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Colemen and Ebrahimi with Spano’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to provide the user with a list of options to select from which would be an expected and essential feature in a voting system.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “…comprises data corresponding to an option determined by the user terminal among a plurality of options” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Goswami, Colemen and Ebrahimi further disclose:
the generating of the hash data comprises generating the hash data using the vote data and the salt data randomized for encryption, and (Ebrahimi ¶0007, The method includes hashing the data combined with the salt using a certification hash algorithm to create a generated hashed data. Ebrahimi ¶0037, Each field is then processed to produce a hash of the data. Optionally, to further obfuscate the original data, the hash can be produced of the original data along with a paired random data to prevent brute-force discovery of the hashed data; in this case, to validate the hash, the data and the random data (e.g., salt) must always be used together. Ebrahimi ¶0043, In each reference of hashing data, optionally a Salt is added to the data before hashing to obfuscate the data further. Ebrahimi ¶0066, application of a salt value to a corresponding certification would ensure that the certification is obfuscated from discovery, such as through a brute force discovery process. This is because the salt value is virtually impossible to discover without disclosure from a holder of the salt value. Ebrahimi ¶0082, In particular, a salt generator 471 generates a salt value, and combines the above information (e.g., transaction number 432, the input data—or selected fields of the input data—received from the user, and, optionally, a timestamp) with the salt value when generating the certification record. For example, the salt value may be appended to the data, or added to the data, or concatenated with the data, etc. The salt value or salt may be unique value, such as a random number generated by a random number generator. Ebrahimi ¶0083, In addition, the certification record (including the salt value) might be hashed and digitally signed by the certifier using a private key of the certifier associated with a public key.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen with the teaching of Ebrahimi. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to obfuscate the data even further.
The combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen do not disclose, however Spanos teaches:
the vote data comprises data corresponding to an option determined by the user terminal among a plurality of options. (Spanos col 2 lines 60-61, receive voting data comprising one or more votes for one or more candidates in an election. See claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen with Spanos’ teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide the user with a list of options to select from which would be an expected and essential feature in a voting system.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen as applied to claim 4 and 18 above, and further in view of Sealy (US 11,100,743 B1).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen do not disclose, however Sealy teaches:
the status information is set to the finalized state when a counting of the vote data is completed in the blockchain network. (Sealy col 15 lines 3-13, The blockchain application examines the tally transaction, and if valid, uses the secrecy private key to decrypt, ballot by ballot through the blockchain's application state, every ballot cast from that registrar and encrypted with the secrecy public key for that registrar, decrypting each one, examining the voter's selections, and updating the master tally in the blockchain application state for each candidate or selection. Hence, the votes are decrypted, the votes are counted, the counted votes are stored, the blockchain application state is updated to include the updated tally of votes, and the updated application state thereby reveals the vote tally.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen with Sealy’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to distinguish the vote data after it is counted in the blockchain network from vote data in other stages of the transaction which is a standard practice in blockchain systems used to track data life cycles.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “the status information is set to the finalized state when a counting of the vote data is completed in the blockchain network” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Claims 8-9 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen as applied to claim 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Loyd (US 11,386,437 B2).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, the combination Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen do not disclose, however Loyd teaches:
comparing data stored in each of the blockchain network and the database server to check whether there is an omission of a vote. (Loyd col 8 lines 47-52, Server 108 may retrieve the master blockchain, which may be stored in a local memory. Alternatively, copies of the master blockchain may be disseminated, and server 108 may compare multiple blockchains stored on multiple devices by checking hash values to ensure that the blockchain has not been tampered with. Loyd col 10 lines 54-60, The voter check-in blockchain may provide an immutable log of voters that have either checked in to a precinct in person and voters whose mail-in ballots have been received and opened. By comparing the number of checked-in voters to the tally reported in the master blockchain, voters may have confidence that no fake votes entered the system. Loyd col 11 lines 11-37, FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating a voter check-in confirmation method, consistent with embodiments of the present disclosure. At step 702, the voter check-in terminal may initialize a voter check-in blockchain with a voter check-in genesis block, the voter check-in genesis block comprising a check-in terminal identifier and store the voter check-in blockchain in at least one terminal memory at step 704. The voter check-in terminal may iteratively, for the plurality of voters, check in voters starting with receiving an indication of an identifier of a voter at step 706. For instance, a poll worker may select an option on a user interface of the voter check-in terminal indicating that the voter's ID has been checked, or inputting information from a voter such as driver's license number. At step 708, the voter check-in terminal accesses a data store comprising a list of registered voters. The list may be a database hosted by an election board, for instance, comprising registered voters. Further, the voter check-in terminal may access a master voter check-in blockchain on a server, such as server 108. The voter check-in terminal may determine if the identifier of the voter is present in the master check-in blockchain, thus determining if someone with the same voter identifier has already voted. The voter check-in terminal may then issue an error indicating that the voter may not vote again, or indicate that the voter must be provided a provisional ballot, and append to the check-in data structure an indication that the voter has already voted.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen with Loyd’s teaching. While Loyd’s reference focuses on detecting fake votes, it would have been a logical and predictable enhancement to extend the same comparison process to check for missing or omitted votes. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to ensure data consistency and accuracy between the two storage layers (the database and the blockchain).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi, Colemen and Loyd further teaches:
if there is no omission of the vote, verifying the vote data by providing the vote data and salt data to the blockchain network. (Loyd col 11 lines 38-50, At step 710, the voter check-in terminal creates a check-in data structure containing the identifier in response to the voter being among the list of registered voters. In some embodiments, the check-in data structure may contain an indication that the voter has checked-in, without the identifier. At step 712, voter check-in terminal determines a voter check-in hash value of the check-in data structure, and, at step 714, appends a new voter check-in block comprising the check-in data structure and the new voter check-in hash value to the voter check-in blockchain. Voter check-in terminal then stores the voter check-in blockchain in the at least one memory at step 716.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi, Colemen and Loyd with Loyd’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to ensure that only valid and complete vote data are recorded and confirmed in the blockchain.
Further, the claim limitation in the method claim “if there is no omission of the vote, verifying the vote data by providing the vote data and salt data to the blockchain network” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Claims 10-11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami, Ebrahimi, Colemen and Loyd as applied to claim 9 and 23 above, and further in view of Joao (US 2022/0051503 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi, Colemen and Loyd do not disclose, however Joao teaches:
the verification server is configured to, when a counting of the vote data is completed in the blockchain network, receive a vote result from the blockchain network and store the vote result in the database server. (Joao ¶0084, the registering and the counting of votes and/or ballots in an election using a distributed ledger and/or blockchain technology system. Joao ¶0390, At step 1212, the central processing computer 11 can process information for generating an official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue on the e-voting ballot, so as to keep a running tally of counted votes. At step 1212, the central processing computer 11 can transmit the official vote tally or vote count, for each public office race and for each referendum issue, to the public election administrator/governmental entity computer 40 for the governmental entity holding the election. Joao ¶0176, The database 11H can also contain and/or include the voting results or election results, including information regarding a winner(s) and/or loser(s), for each election, campaign, contest, competition, tournament, pageant, poll, or survey, serviced by, administered by, and/or monitored or overseen by, the apparatus 100 of the present invention. Joao ¶0391, At step 1212, the central processing computer 11 can also store, in the database 11H of the central processing computer 11 and in the distributed ledger/Blockchain technology system 12 of the central processing computer/distributed ledger/Blockchain technology system 10, information regarding the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, and/or the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue. In another preferred, at step 1212, the information regarding the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, and/or the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, can be stored by the central processing computer 11 in the database 11H, and/or the information regarding the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, and/or the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, can be stored in the distributed ledger/Blockchain technology system 12 of the central processing computer/distributed ledger/Blockchain technology system 10.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi, Colemen and Loyd with Joao’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to ensure data accessibility and traceability that allows for future system auditing, transaction history queries, status check among other features.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi, Colemen, Loyd and Joao further teach:
the database server is configured to provide the vote result to the user terminal in response to a vote result request received from the user terminal. (Loyd col 10 lines 24-44, At step 602, server 108 may receive a query request from a user device, for instance, via the internet and an election official website. The query may contain a query hash value corresponding to a block recording the voter's vote and printed on a receipt given to the voter after scanning his ballot. Server 108 may determine a block of the blockchain comprising the query hash value at step 604. This step may comprise querying a database storing hash values in correlation to respective data structures, such as a SQL database created using data of a voting machine blockchain. At step 606, server 108 may retrieve a result data structure, and return the result data structure to the user device at step 608, for instance, on a website where the voter input the voter's hash value. In this way, the voter can view his particular votes, but only the voter will know these votes were his votes, as no one else will have a copy of the receipt showing the corresponding hash value, and, as in some embodiments, no personal information is contained in the block along with the vote log. Although server 108 is recited in this example embodiment of process 600, any device may be used to query the database.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi, Colemen, Loyd and Joao with Loyd’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to enable user access to vote results in a practical and efficient manner as well as to enhance election transparency.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi, Colemen and Loyd do not disclose, however Joao teaches:
when a counting of the vote data is completed in the blockchain network, receiving a vote result from the blockchain network, storing the vote result in the database server; and (Joao ¶0084, the registering and the counting of votes and/or ballots in an election using a distributed ledger and/or blockchain technology system. Joao ¶0390, At step 1212, the central processing computer 11 can process information for generating an official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue on the e-voting ballot, so as to keep a running tally of counted votes. At step 1212, the central processing computer 11 can transmit the official vote tally or vote count, for each public office race and for each referendum issue, to the public election administrator/governmental entity computer 40 for the governmental entity holding the election. Joao ¶0176, The database 11H can also contain and/or include the voting results or election results, including information regarding a winner(s) and/or loser(s), for each election, campaign, contest, competition, tournament, pageant, poll, or survey, serviced by, administered by, and/or monitored or overseen by, the apparatus 100 of the present invention. Joao ¶0391, At step 1212, the central processing computer 11 can also store, in the database 11H of the central processing computer 11 and in the distributed ledger/Blockchain technology system 12 of the central processing computer/distributed ledger/Blockchain technology system 10, information regarding the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, and/or the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue. In another preferred, at step 1212, the information regarding the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, and/or the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, can be stored by the central processing computer 11 in the database 11H, and/or the information regarding the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, and/or the official vote tally or vote count for each public office race and for each referendum issue, can be stored in the distributed ledger/Blockchain technology system 12 of the central processing computer/distributed ledger/Blockchain technology system 10.)
and providing the vote result to the user terminal in response to a vote result request received from the user terminal. (Joao ¶0392, At step 1213, the central processing computer 11 can also generate, and can transmit to the user communication device 20, and/or to any number of user communication devices 20 of, or associated with, the individual, and/or can transmit to the public election administrator/governmental entity computer 40, a voting confirmation message containing information regarding the date and time the individual voted in the election, information regarding the election, information regarding any votes cast by the individual, if desired by the individual, and/or a link or hyperlink to the each of the voter account use message, the digital file containing the information regarding the picture, the photograph, or the video clip, of the individual, and/or any other information. Joao ¶0490, In a preferred embodiment, the central processing computer 11 can also provide the results of a poll(s) or survey(s) when the latest information becomes available and/or at any other time. The polling information or survey information can also be provided to the respective candidate, campaign, and/or political party, as an e-mail transmission, an e-mail message, an instant message, a text message, an SMS message, an MMS message, an electronic transmission, a telephone message, a letter mail delivery, a telephone transmission, a facsimile transmission, a beeper or a pager message, and/or via any other notification means or method.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi, Colemen and Loyd with Joao’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to enable data accessibility and traceability that allows for future system auditing, transaction history queries, status check among other features as well as to enable user access to vote results in a practical and efficient manner.
Further, the claim limitation “providing the vote result to the user terminal in response to a vote result request received from the user terminal” is a conditional limitation which means that the claim limitation is only required when the stated condition is met.
Claims 15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen as applied to claim 13 and 25 above, and further in view of Ramos (US 2024/0330899 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 27, the combination of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen do not disclose, however Ramos teaches:
the token identification information comprises uniform resource locator (URL) information indicating an address where the token is stored (Ramos ¶0070, Token URI 144 may provide a link (e.g., an IPFS URL) between blockchain token 138 and the token metadata stored off chain. In some embodiments, token metadata 148 includes a URL or hyperlink to location-based content 150.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the features of Goswami, Ebrahimi and Colemen with Ramos’ teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to combine these features in order to facilitate verification and retrieval of the token data stored in the blockchain which is a common practice.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “the token identification information comprises uniform resource locator (URL) information indicating an address where the token is stored” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Response to Arguments
Foreign priority claim
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant asserts that “the human mind is not equipped to 1) generate hash data based on a) vote data received from a user terminal and b) salt data randomized for encryption, in response to a voting request of the user terminal, and provide the hash data to the user terminal, or 2) confirm when a) the hash data transmitted by the user terminal to the blockchain network with the token and b) the hash data stored in the database server which was generated in the voting control server based on the vote data and the salt data match each other, as defined in claim 1.” and “it involves a several-step manipulation of the voting data, as evident from the steps that the human mind is not equipped to perform noted above”. The examiner considered these assertions, however finds them not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner did not identify the claims as a mental process. Rather, the claims were identified as failing within “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the applicants assertion that the human mind cannot practically perform the steps, does not confer patent eligibility. The use of generic computer components to carry out data-processing tasks does not transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
Further the applicant asserts that “claim 1 as a whole constitutes an improvement to a token voting system by providing a way to identify and not count fraudulent votes.”, to which the examiner also disagrees. The claim does not recite any specific technological improvement to the token voting system, blockchain network, hashing techniques or computer functionality. Also, the alleged ability to “identify and count fraudulent votes” is presented at a very high level of generality and this alleged improvement relates only to the voting process and not the technology itself. Finally, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim merely implements a “certain methods of organizing human activity”. Therefore, the claim does not recite any technological advancement or inventive integration beyond applying these tools to an abstract concept and thus fail to impose any meaningful limit that would transform the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of step 2A of the subject matter eligibility framework.
As such the claims remain within an abstract idea and rejection is maintained based on the newly amended claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the newly added claimed expression in the amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
US 2006/0289638 A1 to Schilling discloses: A database server stores identification data, voter registration data, and voting-status data, of each multiplicity of voters located in each remote-voting area, respectively, of a plurality of remote-voting areas. A plurality of remote workstations are located at a plurality of remote-voting areas, respectively. Each remote-voting area may be located in different geographic area from other remote-voting areas in the plurality of remote-voting areas. Each remote workstation in a respective remote-voting area, is coupled through a network to the database server. Voter-identification data are sent on each voter to the database server. The database means is accessed for verifying eligibility of the voter for voting from the identification data, registration of the voter from the registration data, and voting status of the voter from the voting-status data.
US 2002/0083126 A1 to Best et al. discloses: An online election system has a database of registered votes. A voter accessing the election system through a server means end user interface verifies themselves by providing security information such as a unique identifier and password. The voter is then presented with a list of candidates and is prompted to indicate their vote which is then submitted to the sever. Confidentiality of a vote is ensured because all voter identification is removed from the vote when the vote is received at the server means and before the vote is stored and tallied. The privacy of the vote is further enhanced by encrypting communications between the server means and the user interface.
US 11670127 B1 to Gatt discloses: Systems and methods for monitoring and reporting the status of paper ballots for mail-in voting are provided. The paper ballots are monitored during their transit to and/or from the voters. Reports regarding the status of such paper ballots may be provided to the voters and/or the elections division. Such reports may facilitate increased transparency into the mail-in voting process.
KR 102657602 B1 to Jeong discloses: The present invention relates to an electronic voting device, which includes a storage unit that stores decimal numbers corresponding to candidate numbers and a voting module connected to the storage unit. The voting module encrypts the vote content image file transmitted from the polling place device using the voting device public key, stores it in the voting content proof data database as a vote content certificate, and converts it to a decimal corresponding to the candidate number transmitted from the polling place device. A vote result for counting is generated, the voting result for counting is homomorphically encrypted to calculate a homomorphically encrypted vote result for counting, and then transmitted to the election monitoring device, and the nth-th encrypted homomorphically encrypted counting vote transmitted from the election monitoring device is generated. The results are stored in the storage unit, a hash value is extracted from the voting results for the homomorphic encryption aggregation, and transmitted as a hash value of the voting result to the blockchain, and the hash value transaction identification number transmitted from the blockchain is sent to the election surveillance device. Transmit the n-th encrypted hash value transaction identification number transmitted from the election monitoring device, the n-th encrypted homomorphically encrypted voting result for counting, and the content certificate location information transmitted from the polling place device to the voting result database as voting result information. Save.
WO 2017202451 A1 to Bringfeld discloses: The method involves capturing a biometric signature (202). The biometric signature is stored. A set of polynomials is calculated from the biometric signature. The set of the polynomials is aggregated into a salt by aggregating the set of the polynomials into a vector string such that the vector string constitutes the salt. A hash is created by performing a hash calculation on a data set and the hash is salted with the salt. The hash comprising the salt is encrypted with a private key on an electronic device (200).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights