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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination Transmittal received on 11/26/2025. Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16 and 19 are amended. Claims 4 and 14 are 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.
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of conditionally controlling access to data and processing it according to predefined security rules. The claim recites determining a security level, selecting a processing approach based on that determination, verifying permissions, processing data according to defined logic and returning a result. These steps correspond to evaluating conditions and applying rules, which fall within the abstract idea groupings of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity, including authorization and access control, as well as information processing involving the handling and transformation of data. Despite the claim references a blockchain system, smart contracts, encrypted data, and a trusted computing environment, these elements are described at a high level and function as part of the computing environment, The claim does not recite specific technical improvement to blockchain operation, trusted execution mechanism, cryptographic processing or computer functionality. Furthermore, the claim does not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The use of blockchain execution, encryption, permission checks and trusted processing are conventional techniques used to implement secure data handling and access control. The claim describes functional result rather than a specific technical implementation. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and does not include additional elements sufficient to make the claims patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in substance that amended claim 1 is similar to Example 41. The operations of the claim do not fall into a mental process and cannot be performed in the human mind. Claim 1 includes technical improvements to conventional data processing systems and provides a specific manner of utilizing blockchain system for data processing and therefore the claim is eligible under 2B and the claim is similar to example 21.
Response to “similar to Example 41”. The examiner respectfully disagrees, example 41 (Database Configuration for Seperation of Unconstructed data) is patent eligible because it provides a specific technical solution to a technical problem as how to efficiently store and retrieve large unstructured data objects by separating the n from structured data and using metadata indices. It describes a concrete database architecture with specific struct ureal improvement of separating data types, metadata indexing and pointer systems. whereas the current claim simply recites conditional logic applied to generic blockchain operations. The current claim lacks technical specificity that made Example 41 eligible.
Response to “technical improvements under step 2A Prong 2”. This argument is not persuasive that the claim shows a technical improvement. Under prong 2, the claim should improve the functioning of the computer or technology itself, rather than simply using technology to perform a process. The claim recites conventional blockchain operation such as storing and retrieving smart contract; standard encryption/decryption operations; and routine processor and memory functions. The claims seem to apply organizational logic using conventional technology components. It is not clear what technical problem related to blockchain, encryption, or distributed system is being solved.
Response to “specific manner of utilizing blockchain”. Simply utilizing blockchain for a process is not sufficient for eligibility. The claim would need to show how the blockchain is used in an unconventional way or provides technical improvement. The claim recites, conventional node configuration, standard smart contract of deployment and execution and routine encrypted storage and retrieval. Which are well understood activities in blockchain system.
Response to argument “similar to Example 21”. Example 21 involved an unconventional timing control sequence that solved a specific technical problem in hybrid display systems. However, the current claim includes conditional logic based on security level, routine blockchain encryption operations and functional language such as trusted computing environment, trusted manner, without corresponding structural details. Under 2B, these elements appear to be well understood and conventional. The ordered combination does not provide an inventive concept enough to transform the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO 892).
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