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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment received on 4/28/2026. Claims 1, 11 and 19 are amended. Claims 4 and 14 have been previously cancelled. Consequently, claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method that includes: configuring a node in a blockchain system, determining a security level, receiving a request, obtaining encrypted data and encrypted smart contracts, decrypting the smart contracts, decrypting the data, checking permissions, processing the data according to smart contact logic and returning results. These steps are similar to certain methods or organizing human activity and mental process including, receiving and analyzing information, making a decision based on rules (security level), performing conditional logic (if first level do x; if second level do y), processing data according to predefined rules, returning results. These steps are similar to Electric Power Group (collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and transmitting data) which is an abstract idea. The claims do not improve blockchain technology, trusted computing, cryptography, or computer architecture, instead, it uses these technologies as tool to perform the abstract data processing as confirmed in the paragraph 0010 of the specification. This clearly shows that the invention is about organizing and routing data processing tasks, not improving computer functionality.
The additional elements include: blockchain, smart contract, trusted computing environment, encrypted data, node and returning results are generic computer components performing well understood, routine and conventional functions. The claims do not recite any of : a new blockchain architecture, a new consensus mechanism, a new trusted computing structure, a new cryptographic technique ,a new data structure, and a new smart-contract execution model. Instead, simply using blockchains and trusted computing to perform generic data processing is not sufficient. Thus, the claims do not include inventive concept.
The claims do not include additional elements that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite generic components performing routine functions. The blockchain and trusted computing are used conventionally. Decryption and permission checking are conventional. The conditional logic is not inventive. There are no unconventional arrangement of components present in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following:
1-The claim is rooted in computer technology and improves data security/privacy.
Response. The argument is not persuasive because the claims are directed to abstract idea of processing, not a technological improvement of blockchain, cryptography or trusted computing. The specification itself describes the invention as a data processing workflow (see paragraph 0010), which states that various data processing functions can be implemented through the node in the blockchain system and the smart contracts stored in the blockchain... This shows the invention uses blockchain as an environment, not as the object of improvement. Simply performing known operations such as receiving, decrypting, verifying processing and returning in a distributed environment does not provide a technical improvement. The claims do not recite any of: a new blockchain architecture; a new consensus mechanism; a new trusted execution environment design; a new cryptographic technique or a new way of storing or executing smart contracts. Therefore, the claims are not rooted in computer technology.
2- Smart contracts improve blockchain by providing immutable, automated, tamper-proof execution.
Response. This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not improve smart contracts. It simply uses them. Using a known technology for its intended purpose is not an improvement. The smart contracts are already immutable, automated and temper resistant. The claims do not change how the constricts are stored, executed, validated, propagated or secured. Instead, the claims simply use smart contracts as tools to perform data processing.
3- The claim is similar to USPTO Example 1 (removing malicious code).
Response. This argument is not persuasive Example 1 is eligible because the claim recites a specific technical solution or scanning an email, identifying malicious code, isolating it, modifying the message and delivering a safe version. This is a technical improvement to computer security. Whereas the current claim recites: receiving a request, decrypting data, checking permissions, executing a smart contract and returning results. These are generic data processing steps, not a specific improvement to computer security.
4- The claim is similar to Example 41 (blockchain integrity verification).
Response. This argument is not persuasive Example 41 is eligible because It improves blockchain technology itself by detecting tampering in a distributed ledger, using a new hash-based technique and improving integrity verification. The current claim does not improve blockchain integrity, consensus, storage, or execution. It simply uses blockchain as a platform for running data processing logic. The USPTO explicitly states that using blockchain is not enough unless the claim improves the blockchain itself.
5- This independent claim is similar to Example 21, claim 2.
Response. This argument is not persuasive Example 21 claim 2, is eligible because it recites a specific improvement to database functionality, a new way of storing and retrieving data and a technical solution to a technical problem. Whereas the current claim does not recite any of: a new data structure, a new storage mechanism, a new retrieval algorithm or a new blockchain architecture. It simply recites conditional logic (if first security level, do X; if second security level, do y), which is abstract. Therefore, example 21 is not analogous.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights