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
This is the final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on September 18, 2025.
Claims 1-6 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined.
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections:
The amended claims have overcome most of the claim objections. The applicant is advised to refer to the claim objection section for details.
Claim Interpretation:
The amended claims have overcome the claim interpretation, and the claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
The amended claims have overcome the 112(a) rejection; therefore, the 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
The amended claims have overcome some of the issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Additionally, the amended claims cause more 112(b) issues. The applicant is advised to refer to the 112 rejection section for details.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
The applicant contends that the amended claim 1 now explicitly recites a technological implementation that goes far beyond merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim 1 recites: “[A] service mediation server implemented as a server computer comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server computer to execute a smart contract algorithm for creating a blockchain-based smart contract … wherein the smart contract creation algorithm comprises: (i) receiving the homomorphically encrypted data from the service requester terminal,(ii) transmitting the homomorphically encrypted data to the service provider terminal, (iii) allocating the computing resources for cryptocurrency mining, (iv) monitoring mining revenue generation, and (v) automatically executing payment from the mining revenue to the service provider terminal upon receipt of the data analysis result.” First, the examiner would like to point out that the smart contract creation algorithm is not positively recited as a component of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. It is out of the scope of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. Second, the amened claim 1 only recites the smart contract creation algorithm comprising the functionalities without disclosing performing these functionalities. Therefore, the cited smart contract creation algorithm does not recite a technological implementation that goes far beyond merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer. Additionally, creating a blockchain-based smart contract that defines contract execution conditions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Creating and deploying a smart contract on a blockchain is a commonly used feature of the blockchain. Furthermore, the claims of the instant application are not similar to Finjan v Blue Coat System, because the case of Finjan v Blue Coat System is clearly not applicable to the instant claims, as in Finjan v Blue Coat System where the court determined that using the security profile in a particular way enables more flexible virus filtering and greater user customization. Further, security profile enables the invention to protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and obfuscated code as compared to traditional virus scanning. On the other hand, the claims involve receiving service and paying for the received service. Regarding Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp, the claims of the instant application are not in any way similar to Enfish (Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp) as the claims do not improve the function of the computer itself by providing “increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements” (Enfish at 1690) but they merely recite receiving service and paying for the received service.
The applicant further contends that the ordered combination provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself and that the specification of “homomorphically encrypted data” in combination with the smart contract creation algorithm represents an inventive concept. The examiner respectively disagrees.
First, the “homomorphically encrypted data” is a type of data provided by the service requester, and the service provider is only recited to provide a data analysis result of the homomorphically encrypted data. Additionally, encrypting data homomorphically is only a way to encrypt the data. Furthermore, as discussed above by the examiner, the cited smart contract creation algorithm is not positively recited as a component of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. It is out of the scope of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. Creating and deploying a smart contract on a blockchain is a commonly used feature of the blockchain. Therefore, these elements do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding SRI international INC v. Cisco System, the claims of the instant application are not in any way similar to SRI international INC v. Cisco System; in SRI international INC v. Cisco System, the claims are directed to using a specific technique using a plurality of network monitors that each analyze specific types of data on the network and integrating reports from the monitors to solve a technological problem arising in the computer network. However, the applicant’s claims are directed to receiving service and paying for the received service which is an abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
First, the cited smart contract creation algorithm is not positively recited as a component of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. It is out of the scope of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. Additionally, the examiner would like to point out that most of the paragraph numbers cited by the applicant in the arguments/remarks are not correct, such as paragraph [0040] should be paragraph [0069] of the publication.
The primary reference, Srinivasan, discloses a service mediation server implemented as a server computer comprising a processor and memory storing instructions. The instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to define execution conditions including electronic wallet addresses, payment terms, and computing allocation for cryptocurrency mining using the computing resources, wherein the instructions comprises different functionalities including receiving and transmitting the encrypted data, allocating the computing resources for cryptocurrency mining, monitoring mining revenue generation, and automatically executing payment from the mining revenue to the service provider terminal upon receipt of the data analysis result (see paragraph [0042]; Fig. 12; paragraphs [0082]-[0091]; paragraph [0107]; paragraph [0113]; paragraph [0115]; Fig. 14; paragraphs [0118]-[0119]; paragraphs [0123]-[0125]; and paragraph [0139]).
The second reference, Ding, discloses creating a blockchain-based smart contract that defines contract execution conditions and performs functionalities for data analysis service processing between the service requester terminal and the service provider terminal (see paragraph 2, page 4; the section of Other Related Research, page 7; the last paragraph, page 8; paragraph 4, page 9; paragraph 1, page 18; and the section of Intelligent Contract, page 19).
Srinivasan discloses applications/instructions of a service mediation server for managing electronic wallets, payment terms, and allocating computing resources for cryptocurrency mining. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Ding in the Srinivasan system. Moreover, in order to improve the reliability and accuracy of the Srinivasan system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create a smart contract to perform functionalities needed for data analysis services, so that all tasks associated with the data analysis services can be performed efficiently and accurately.
Additionally, the limitation of a blockchain-based smart contract that defines contract execution conditions including electronic wallet addresses, payment terms, and computing resource allocation for cryptocurrency mining using mediation and the computing resources for data analysis service processing between the service requester terminal and the service provider terminal describe the characteristics of the contract execution conditions. However, the recited characteristics are not processed or used to carry out any steps or functions that rely on these particular characteristics recited in the claims. Furthermore, as the examiner pointed out above, the cited smart contract creation algorithm is not positively recited as a component of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. It is out of the scope of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. For compacted prosecution, the examiner cited the paragraphs in Srinivasan and Ding to disclose these limitations.
Furthermore, the third reference, Mills, discloses that a system provides services through the service providers and cryptocurrency mining opportunities for users of service providers. Mills further discloses registering an available service type. Srinivasan discloses that a network comprises a number of digital service providers for performing digital services and provides cryptocurrency mining opportunities for the users. Srinivasan and Mills are in the similar field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Mills in the Srinivasan system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the authenticity of the Srinivasan system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to register the services provided by the service providers, so that the service providers can be authenticated via the registration process.
Regarding claim 2, the examiner would like to point out that the instant application discloses that the service requester terminal encrypts the data, the same as Ding. Ding further discloses that an encryption module is provided by the server (see paragraphs 7-10, page 10, “A. homomorphic encryption module input: the system consists of an original data matrix D of the user side and a model M provided by the model providing side; B. outputting by the homomorphic encryption module: the system consists of a ciphertext matrix D 'encrypted by an original data matrix D of the user side and an encrypted model M' of the model providing end.”)
Regarding claim 5, Srinivasan discloses the instruction stored in the memory of the service mediation server, when executed by the processor, cause the server computer to execute the instructions/applications, including a cryptocurrency mining remote control that performs remote control for cryptocurrency mining based on the computing resources provided by the service request terminal, to perform different functionalities (see paragraph [0034]; paragraphs [0082]-[0087]; paragraph [0091]; Figs 12-13; and paragraphs [0107]-[0113]). Ding discloses creating and executing a smart contract for requesting analysis of homomorphically encrypted data between the service requester terminal and the service provider terminal, provide analysis results, processing cost payment, paying payment cost (see the section of Other Related Research, page 7; paragraph 7, page 8; paragraph 4, page 9; and paragraph 1, page 18). Additionally, the cited smart contract creation algorithm is not positively recited as a component of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. It is out of the scope of the claimed bitcoin hunter system.
The applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. However, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “cause the server computer configured to execute a smart contract algorithm for creating a blockchain-based smart contract … wherein the smart contract creation algorithm comprises.” The phrasing, “a smart contract algorithm,” should be changed to “a smart contract creation algorithm,” for consistency.
Clam 4 recites “wherein the instructions stored in the memory of the service requester terminal, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to set, when the computing resource provided by the service requester terminal is selected as a cryptocurrency resource, the profit generated by cryptocurrency mining as a payment fund first, sets, when the difference occurs after payment, the difference to be returned to the electronic wallet, and sets, when the gap occurs during the payment, the gap amount to be deducted from the electronic wallet.” The two underlined words of “sets” should be changed to “to set” for consistency.
Claim 6 recites “to create the smart contract in which the contract execution conditions including the electronic wallet addresses of the service requester and the service provider … the utilization conditions of the computing resources for cryptocurrency mining … and the service requester terminal and the analysis service provider terminal, respectively, perform digital signatures on the smart contract.” The phrasings, “the utilization conditions” and “the analysis service provider terminal,” should be changed to “utilization conditions” and “an analysis service provider terminal,” respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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 “cause the server computer configured to execute a smart contract algorithm for create creating a blockchain-based smart contract that defines contract execution conditions including electronic wallet addresses, payment terms, and computing resource allocation for cryptocurrency mining using mediation and the computing resources for data analysis service processing between the service requester terminal and the service provider terminal.” First, the manner of using mediation is unclear. It is not clear what mediation is. Second, it is not clear whether the computing resource allocation is for both cryptocurrency mining and data analysis service or for cryptocurrency mining only. For examination purpose, the limitation is interpreted as computing resource allocation for cryptocurrency mining using the computing resources.
Claim 2 recites “set the mining revenue using the computing resources of the service requester and the cryptocurrency charged in an electronic wallet as a payment fund for the data analysis cost.” First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined phrasings in the claim. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites data analysis costs, not a data analysis cost.
Claim 4 recites “the profit generated by cryptocurrency mining as a payment fund first, sets, when the difference occurs after payment, the difference to be returned to the electronic wallet, and sets, when the gap occurs during the payment, the gap amount to be deducted from the electronic wallet.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined phrasings in the claim. Claim 4 depends on claim 2, and claim 2 does not define difference, gap, or gap amount. The examiner suggests amending “the difference,” “the gap,” and “the gap amount” to “a difference,” “a gap,”, and “a gap amount,” respectively.
Claim 5 recites “execute the smart contract creation algorithm to create and execute the blockchain-based smart contract for requesting analysis of homomorphically encrypted data between the service requester terminal and the service provider terminal, providing analysis results, processing cost payment, paying payment cost, and mining cryptocurrency using the computing resources.” Claim 5 depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1. Claim 1 discloses the smart contract creation algorithm comprising “(i) receiving the homomorphically encrypted data from the service requester terminal, (ii) transmitting the homomorphically encrypted data to the service provider terminal, (iii) allocating the computing resources for cryptocurrency mining, (iv) monitoring mining revenue generation, and (v) automatically executing payment from the mining revenue to the service provider terminal upon receipt of the data analysis result.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the cited steps of “requesting analysis of homomorphically encrypted data between the service requester terminal and the service provider terminal, providing analysis results, processing cost payment, paying payment cost, and mining cryptocurrency using the computing resources” are performed by the smart contract creation algorithm or by the created blockchain-based smart contract. For examination purpose, the limitation is interpreted to suggest that these steps are performed by the smart contract creation algorithm.
Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claim 1.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 1-8 are directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1-8 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to receiving service and paying for the received service. In particular, the claim recites selecting a service type and a registered service provider, and paying for the service by using mining revenue. In other words, the claim falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)) because the claim involves the steps of receiving service and paying for the service, which is a process associated with fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial interactions. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “[a] Bitcoin hunter system combined with real-life automatic mining and homomorphic encryption-based data analysis service mediation, the system comprising: a service requester terminal implemented as a computing device comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to select an analysis service type and an analysis service provider according to the analysis service type, respectively, provide computing resources for homomorphically encrypted data and cryptocurrency mining respectively, while requesting data analysis, and pay for data analysis costs by utilizing mining revenue through computing resources when receiving a data analysis result; a service provider terminal implemented as a computing device comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to register an available analysis service type, provide the data analysis result for the homomorphically encrypted data and receive payment from the service requester terminal; and a service mediation server implemented as a server computer comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server computer to execute a smart contract algorithm for creating a blockchain-based smart contract that defines contract execution conditions including electronic wallet addresses, payment terms, and computing resource allocation for cryptocurrency mining using mediation and the computing resources for data analysis service processing between the service requester terminal and the service provider terminal, wherein the smart contract creation algorithm comprises: (i) receiving the homomorphically encrypted data from the service requester terminal,(ii) transmitting the homomorphically encrypted data to the service provider terminal, (iii) allocating the computing resources for cryptocurrency mining, (iv) monitoring mining revenue generation, and (v) automatically executing payment from the mining revenue to the service provider terminal upon receipt of the data analysis result.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements — a service requester terminal implemented as a computing device comprising a processor and memory, computing resources, a service provider terminal implemented as a computing device comprising a processor and memory, a service mediation server implemented as a server computer comprising a processor and memory, a blockchain-based smart contract, and a smart contract creation algorithm in claim 1 — perform the functionalities of selecting a service type and a provider and paying for the service by using mining revenue. The additional elements of a service requester terminal, a service provider terminal, and a service mediation server are the regular computing devices/computers comprising a processor and memory. These computing devices/computers are cited as regular computing devices/computers to perform the abstract idea. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of a blockchain-based smart contract is created to include contract conditions. Including conditions/terms in a contract is a regular procedure. Creating and deploying a smart contract on a blockchain is a commonly used feature of the blockchain. The additional element of “wherein the smart contract creation algorithm comprises: (i) receiving the homomorphically encrypted data from the service requester terminal,(ii) transmitting the homomorphically encrypted data to the service provider terminal, (iii) allocating the computing resources for cryptocurrency mining, (iv) monitoring mining revenue generation, and (v) automatically executing payment from the mining revenue to the service provider terminal upon receipt of the data analysis result” describes the characteristics of the smart contract creation algorithm. Additionally, the smart contract creation algorithm is not positively recited as a component of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. It is out of the scope of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. The additional elements of claim 1 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine; and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using a service requester terminal implemented as a computing device comprising a processor and memory, computing resources, a service provider terminal implemented as a computing device comprising a processor and memory, a service mediation server implemented as a server computer comprising a processor and memory, a blockchain-based smart contract, and a smart contract creation algorithm to perform the functionalities of receiving service and paying for the service by using mining revenue amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements of a service requester terminal, a service provider terminal, and a service mediation server are the regular computing devices/computers comprising a processor and memory. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the recited abstract idea. The additional element of a blockchain-based smart contract is created to include contract conditions. Including conditions/terms in a contract is a regular procedure. Creating and deploying a smart contract on a blockchain is a commonly used feature of the blockchain. The additional element of “wherein the smart contract creation algorithm comprises: (i) receiving the homomorphically encrypted data from the service requester terminal,(ii) transmitting the homomorphically encrypted data to the service provider terminal, (iii) allocating the computing resources for cryptocurrency mining, (iv) monitoring mining revenue generation, and (v) automatically executing payment from the mining revenue to the service provider terminal upon receipt of the data analysis result” describes the characteristics of the smart contract creation algorithm. Additionally, the smart contract creation algorithm is not positively recited as a component of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. It is out of the scope of the claimed bitcoin hunter system. As discussed above, taking the additional elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-8 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 as a whole is directed to receiving service and paying for the service by using mining revenue, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)) because the claim involves the steps of receiving service and paying for the service by using mining revenue, which is a process associated with fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial interactions. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 2 recites “[t]he Bitcoin hunter system of claim 1, wherein the instructions stored in the memory of the service requester terminal, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to: select one analysis service type from among a plurality of analysis service type items and select one analysis service provider from among a plurality of analysis service providers provided according to the selected analysis service type; set at least one computing resource connectable to the service mediation server for cryptocurrency mining; set the mining revenue using the computing resources of the service requester and the cryptocurrency charged in an electronic wallet as a payment fund for the data analysis cost, and set a payment sharing method for the mining revenue and the cryptocurrency charged in the electronic wallet; and generate a private key and the homomorphically encrypted data based on a library environment dedicated to homomorphic encryption provided by the service mediation server and decrypt the received data analysis result with the private key.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements — a service requester terminal, a processor, a service mediation server, an electronic wallet, and a library environment in claim 2 — perform the functionalities of receiving service and paying for the service by using mining revenue. As discussed above, the additional elements of a service requester terminal and a service mediation server are the regular computing devices/computers comprising a processor and memory. An electronic wallet is a commonly used application for storing funds and making payments. A library environment is implemented by utilizing the established library (see paragraph [0048] of the specification). These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 2 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements above merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine; and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 2 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using a service requester terminal, a processor, a service mediation server, an electronic wallet, and a library environment to perform the functionalities of receiving service and paying for the service by using mining revenue amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the recited abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the additional elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea of proceeding with all payments with cryptocurrency, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. A service requester terminal, an electronic wallet of the service requester, and a computing resource are the identified additional elements. As discussed above, the additional element of a service requester terminal is the regular computing device comprising a processor and memory. An electronic wallet is a commonly used application for storing funds and making payments. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea of paying for the service by the profit generated by cryptocurrency mining, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. The identified additional elements include a service requester terminal and a computing resource. As discussed above, the additional element of a service requester terminal is the regular computing device comprising a processor and memory. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 as a whole is directed to providing the service and collecting the payment for the service, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)) because the claim involves the steps of providing the service and collecting the payment for the service, which is a process associated with fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial interactions. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 5 recites “[t]he Bitcoin hunter system of claim 2, wherein the instructions stored in the memory of the service mediation server, when executed by the processor, cause the server computer to: store information on an analysis service provider by analysis service type; provide a dedicated application for homomorphic encryption of data to the service requester terminal; provide a list of at least one analysis service provider to the service requester terminal, receive a data analysis request and the homomorphically encrypted data from the service requester terminal, and transmit the received homomorphically encrypted data to the selected service provider terminal through the service requester terminal; execute the smart contract creation algorithm to create and execute the blockchain-based smart contract for requesting analysis of homomorphically encrypted data between the service requester terminal and the service provider terminal, providing analysis results, processing cost payment, paying payment cost, and mining cryptocurrency using the computing resources; and perform remote control for cryptocurrency mining based on computing resources provided by the service requester terminal according to the smart contract.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements — a service requester terminal, a service mediation server, a smart contract creation algorithm, a blockchain-based smart contract, and computing resources in claim 5 — perform the functionalities of providing the service and collecting the payment for the service. The additional elements of a service requester terminal and a service mediation server are the regular computing devices/computers comprising a processor and memory. These computing devices/computers are cited as regular computing devices/computers to perform the abstract idea. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of a blockchain-based smart contract is created to include contract conditions. Creating and executing a smart contract on a blockchain is a commonly used feature of the blockchain. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 5 as a whole, judging from the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements above merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine; and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using a service requester terminal, a service mediation server, a smart contract creation algorithm, a blockchain-based smart contract, and computing resources to perform the functionalities of providing the service and collecting the payment for the service amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the recited abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the additional elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea of providing service based on a contract, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. The identified additional elements include a service mediation server, a smart contract creation algorithm, a smart contract, a blockchain network, a service requester terminal, and an analysis service provider terminal. The additional elements of a service requester terminal and a service mediation server are the regular computing devices/computers comprising a processor and memory. The additional element of an analysis service provider terminal is a device associated with the analysis service provider. These devices/computers are cited as regular computing devices/computers to perform the abstract idea. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of a smart contract is created to include contract conditions. Creating and executing a smart contract on a blockchain is a commonly used feature of the blockchain. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites an additional element of wherein the homomorphically encrypted data is data encrypted with somewhat homomorphic encryption (SHE) or data encrypted with fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) based on a lattice encryption algorithm. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. The additional element does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional element merely describes information included in the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites an additional element of wherein the analysis service type includes at least one type of analysis service among medical analysis service, financial analysis service, legal analysis service, and machine learning-based analysis service. The additional element is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. The additional element does not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional element merely describes information included in the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US 20200410488 A1) in view of Ding et al. (CN 112347495 A), and further in view of Mills (US 20210383372 A1).
Claim 1:
Srinivasan discloses the following:
a Bitcoin hunter system combined with real-life automatic mining and […] encryption-based data analysis service mediation, the system comprising. (See paragraphs [0006]-[0008], “[t]he electronic device may include embedded cryptocurrency mining circuitry that generates cryptocurrency rewards by computing solutions to a cryptographic puzzle according to a cryptocurrency protocol that is maintained by a cryptocurrency network…. The cryptocurrency rewards may include bitcoin rewards…. The processing circuitry may identify digital data upon which remote digital services such as remote processing services are to be performed. The remote processing services may, for example, involve processing power that far exceeds the capabilities of the processing circuitry on the device. The processing circuitry may identify a remote processing network (e.g., a digital services network that is separate from the device such as a cloud network of computing devices) that performs the remote processing services”; paragraph [0034], “[w]hile the example of using circuitry to perform cryptographic operations for mining cryptocurrencies is sometimes described herein as an example, in general, the systems and methods described herein may be applied to any desired system for performing cryptographic operations such as cryptographic hashing operations (e.g., for encrypting or decrypting sensitive data, for protecting communications prior to data transmission of an unsecure medium, for obscuring or scrambling sensitive data, etc.).”)
a service requester terminal implemented as a computing device comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to select an analysis service type and an analysis service provider according to the analysis service type, respectively, provide computing resources for […] encrypted data and cryptocurrency mining respectively, while requesting data analysis, and pay for data analysis costs by utilizing mining revenue through the computing resources when receiving a data analysis result. (See paragraph [0007], “[t]he processing circuitry may identify digital data upon which remote digital services such as remote processing services are to be performed…. The processing circuitry may identify a remote processing network (e.g., a digital services network that is separate from the device such as a cloud network of computing devices) that performs the remote processing services”; paragraph [0034]; paragraph [0037]; Figs. 12-14; paragraph [0093]; paragraph [0104], “[d]evice 300 may also utilize power to perform cryptocurrency mining operations using circuitry 116 (e.g., to generate rewards or reward shares associated with cryptocurrency mining)”; paragraphs [0106]-[0107], “[p]rocessing circuitry 302 (e.g., an operating system on processing circuitry 302) may be able to run one or more software applications that are not used for mining cryptocurrency. The applications running on circuitry 302 may perform data processing operations. The data processing operations may generate processed data using input data…. The data processing operations may be limited by the processing power of circuitry 302 when device 300 was manufactured. For example, some processing operations on input data may prove too computationally taxing to perform using circuitry 302 in a reasonable amount of time or to perform at all. If desired, processing circuitry 302 may utilize remote digital services provided by one or more entities in communications network 320 (e.g., entities remote from device 300) to perform digital services on data generated by device 300…. Communications network 320 may include a number of remote digital service provider networks 322 that each perform remote digital services (e.g., remote processing operations) for devices such as device 300”; paragraphs [0112]-[0113], “[r]emote service provider organizations 324 may charge a fee to use the digital services performed by the corresponding network 322…. If desired, storage and processing circuitry 302 may use cryptocurrency generated by embedded mining circuitry 116 for obtaining access to remote digital services performed by one or more networks 322 (e.g., cryptocurrency rewards provided to hardcoded user wallet 304)”; paragraph [0119], “[p]rocessing circuitry 302 may identify the remote digital services to be performed and may identify data on which remote digital services are to be performed. Processing circuitry 302 may transmit the identified data to a selected remote processing network 322 for processing. Processing circuitry 302 may perform a payment transaction for the remote digital services using the generated cryptocurrency (e.g., using the cryptocurrency rewards generated while processing step 342)”; and paragraph [0121], “[p]rocessing circuitry 302 may identify remote processing operations to perform on the identified data (e.g., processing services performed by identified service network 322).”)
a service provider terminal implemented as a computing device comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to […], provide the analysis result for the […] encrypted data and receive payment from the service requestor terminal. (See paragraph [0034]; Figs. 13-15; paragraph [0107], “[r]emote service provider networks 322 may receive data from device 300 and may perform computationally intensive processing operations on the received data (e.g., operations which circuitry 302 is incapable of performing within a reasonable amount of time or at all). Remote service provider networks 322 may transmit the processed data back to device 300 or to any other desired nodes after processing”; paragraph [0110], “[e]ach remote service provider network 322 may include one or more computing nodes 326 (e.g., desktop computers, laptop computers, mobile computers, servers, etc.)”; paragraphs [0112]-[0113], “[r]emote service provider organizations 324 may charge a fee to use the digital services performed by the corresponding network 322”; and paragraph [0127], “[n]etwork 322 may verify that successful payment has taken place upon receiving the transaction confirmation and may subsequently perform the remote processing operations on the data received from device 300.”)
d. a service mediation server implemented as a server computer comprising a processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server computer to execute instructions for […] defining execution conditions including electronic wallet addresses, payment terms, and computing allocation for cryptocurrency mining using the computing resources, wherein the instructions comprises different functionalities including receiving and transmitting the encrypted data, allocating the computing resources for cryptocurrency mining, monitoring mining revenue generation, and automatically executing payment from the mining revenue to the service provider terminal upon receipt of the data analysis result. (See paragraph [0042], “[t]he public key of a wallet may serve to publicly identify the wallet (e.g., a public address to which funds may be directed), whereas the private key may be used by the owner of the wallet to sign transa