DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed December 19,2025. Claims 1, 2, 16, 17, and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. As per the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant asserts that the claims do not receipt any steps involving fundamental principles, commercial interaction, or the management of human behavior or relationships. Also, Applicant submits that the claims “provides a technical mechanism for incentivizing data fidelity, namely, by generating an aggregate digital resource object based on each determined magnitude value, thereby improving the functioning of the underlying data processing system itself.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of generating an aggregated digital resource object. The digital resource object is described in specification describes as a digital coin or currency (paragraph [0034]). Also, the algorithm to improve the technology is not described in the claims.
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the specification does not support a consensus mechanism “to reject the vent form ledger inclusion if the verification fails, preventing propagation of inconsistent or incomplete event data across disturbed nodes of the blockchain” as recited in independent claim 1. Independent claims 16 and 20 recite similar language.
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are rejected as being dependent upon claims 1 and 16.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 recite “a consensus mechanism configured to verify...,” which is unclear. This suggests that the mechanism is a structure instead of a software protocol.
Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are rejected as being dependent upon claims 1 and 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-15 are directed to a method. Claims 16-19 are directed to a system and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of generating an aggregated digital resource object. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts related to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to generating an aggregated digital resource object. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
detecting, by one or more processors, a presence of an event written to a blockchain as one or more data objects, the event being associated with an entity,
wherein writing the event to the blockchain includes executing a consensus mechanism configured to verify the event against data, including medical data or health data, stored in one or more corresponding data systems, and to reject the event from ledger inclusion if the verification fails, preventing propagation of inconsistent or incomplete event data across distributed nodes of the blockchain;
determining, by the one or more processors, one or more digital resource object categories to be mapped to the event based on one or more factors; determining, by the one or more processors, at least one magnitude value associated with each of the one or more digital resource object categories based on an evaluation of the event, the evaluation including an analysis of one or more parameters associated with the event; and generating, by the one or more processors, an aggregate digital resource object based on each determined magnitude value.
Independent claims 16 and 20 recite similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the processor, blockchain, ledger, consensus mechanism, node, and digital resource object are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of generating an aggregated digital resource object. Viewed as a whole, the use of processor, blockchain, ledger, consensus mechanism, node, and digital resource object as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the processor, blockchain, ledger, consensus mechanism, node, and digital resource object to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of generating an aggregated digital resource object. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of generating an aggregated digital resource object. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as a predefined mapping of known events to the one or more digital resource object categories; and/or an existing association of the event to the one or more digital resource object categories based on information available in a public database; and aggregating each determined parameter values.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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, 3-6, 10-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0159847to Smith (“Smith”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2003/0334447 to Lupowitz et a. (“Lupowitz”) and WO 2023/180745 to Roscoe (“Roscoe”).
As per claim 1, Smith discloses detecting, by one or more processors, a presence of an event written to a blockchain as one or more data objects, the event being associated with an entity(abstract- a request may be received identifying items of information…a transaction of a transaction block may be created on a blockchain), a consensus mechanism (paragraph [0035]), determining, by the one or more processors, one or more digital resource object categories to be mapped to the event based on one or more factors(Fig. 6, item 620 – determine a set of entities ); determining, by the one or more processors, at least one magnitude value associated with each of the one or more digital resource object categories based on an evaluation of the event, the evaluation including an analysis of one or more parameters associated with the event (Fig. 6, 630 -contribution scores; abstract- each contribution score for a given value of an item being based on a level of scarcity of the item and a level of usage of the item); and generating, by the one or more processors, an aggregate digital resource object based on each determined magnitude value (paragraph [0003] – multiparty data aggregation…sharing of data for use by other entities using contribution store).
Smith does not expressly disclose wherein writing the event to the blockchain includes executing a consensus mechanism configured to verify the event against data, including medical data or health data, stored in one or more corresponding data systems, and to reject the event from ledger inclusion if the verification fails, preventing propagation of inconsistent or incomplete event data across distributed nodes of the blockchain.
Lupowitz also discloses generating an aggregated digital resource object based on a determined magnitude value (paragraph [0050]) and medical or health data (paragraph [0037]).
Roscoe discloses writing the event to the blockchain includes executing a consensus mechanism configured to verify the event against data, stored in one or more corresponding data systems, and to reject the event from ledger inclusion if the verification fails, preventing propagation of inconsistent or incomplete event data across distributed nodes of the blockchain (Background - Common consensus mechanisms are based on Proof of Work (PoW) or Proof of Stake (PoS) and provide procedures for processing transaction data to be included in the blockchain with the purpose of dissuading or preventing nodes from behaving maliciously; claim 23 of Roscoe).
The claims recite the conditional /optional language “--if." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Smith by including the features of Lupowitz and Roscoe. Applying the known technique of Lupowitz and Roscoe into the system of Smith would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
As per claim 3, Smith in combination with Lupowitz and Roscoe disclose wherein the one or more digital resource object categories include one or more health-related categories (see claim 1 above). Additionally, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would be performed the same regardless the categories. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
As per claim 4, Smith discloses a predefined mapping of known events to the one or more digital resource object categories; and/or an existing association of the event to the one or more digital resource object categories based on information available in a public database (abstract – level of usage).
The claims recite the conditional /optional language “--and/or." Although the conditional/optional language has been considered, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2111.04: "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation."
As per claim 5, Smith discloses the one or more parameters include at least one of an extent or a duration associated with the event (paragraph [0025] – per request basis or time of exchange).
As per claim 6, Smith in combination with Lupowitz disclose wherein determining the at least one magnitude value further includes: for a respective digital resource object category mapped to the event, determining, by the one or more processors, one or more digital resource object sub-categories mapped to the respective digital resource object category; determining, by the one or more processors, at least one parameter value associated with each of the one or more digital resource object sub-categories based on an evaluation of a data association between the respective digital resource object category and each of the one or more digital resource object sub-categories; and aggregating, by the one or more processors, each determined parameter value (see claim 1 above, Fig. 7 – subset). Also, the examiner notes it is obvious try by one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the steps performed by Smith and Lupowitz in claim 1 to the subset of sub-categories to aggregate each determined parameter value.
Claims 10-18 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 1-7 above.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in combination with Lupowitz and Roscoe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of W) 2020/106803 to Maliani (“Maliani”) .
As per claim 2, Smith in combination with Lupowitz and Roscoe disclose the method claim 1. Maliani discloses verifying whether one or more attributes of the event match one or more attributes of the data stored in the one or more corresponding data system (see paragraph [00128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Smith by including the features of Lupowitz, Roscoe, and Maliani. Applying the known technique of Lupowitz, Roscoe, and Maliani into the system of Smith would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 2.
Claims 7, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Lupowitz and Roscoe as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,790,459 to Strauss.
As per claim 7, Smith in combination with Lupowitz disclose the method of claim 6. The references do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more digital resource object sub-categories are associated with a mortality projection model or a survival analysis model. Strauss discloses categorizing ledger files, which includes one or more digital resource object sub-categories are associated with a mortality projection model (col. 8, lines 19-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute sub-categories of Smith with those of Strauss. One would be motivated to do this because this is a simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result, which renders the claim obvious.
As per claim 8, Strauss discloses the one or more digital resource object categories are associated with a health determinant model (see claim 7 above).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Lupowitz and Roscoe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0342,767 to Andon et al. (“Andon”).
As per claim 9, Smith in combination with Lupowitz disclose the method of claim 1. The references do not expressly disclose determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the one or more attribute data objects is a positive or a negative modifier of the evaluation of the event; and modifying, by the one or more processors, the at least one magnitude value based on the determination. Andon discloses determining, by the one or more processors, whether each of the one or more attribute data objects is a positive or a negative modifier of the evaluation of the event; and modifying, by the one or more processors, the at least one magnitude value based on the determination (see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Andon into the system of Smith in combination with Lupowitz and Roscoe. Hence, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights