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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant is of the opinion that amended claims are not directed to abstract idea because claims integrated into a practical application that improve technology in the field of vehicle telematics, regulatory compliance and blockchain based security. The claims are rooted in vehicle technology, requiring real-time acquisition of sensor-derived parameters such as emissions, power consumption, and driver rest periods. These parameters are not generic data but are specific to vehicle telematics and transportation safety. The claims require automatic modification of target conditions to comply with laws and international standards, which provides a technical mechanism that ensures lawful and reliable operation of the system. The claims further recite storing NFTs in a blockchain distributed ledger, which improves integrity, traceability and tamper-resistance of compliance records. Additionally, claims recite significantly more than the abstract odea because features go beyond conventional computer operations because the integration of vehicle sensors provides a non-conventional real-world data source tied to driving activity. Regularity compliance enforcement through modification of target conditions is a novel control feature not found on the routine computer operations. Blockchain ledger storage provide a recognized technical improvement in secure, tamper-resistant and management. Taken together, the claims recite a specific technological solution to the problem of promoting environmentally responsible and safe driving. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to providing a reward based on a task completion which is an abstract idea. The claims involve a series of steps of storing a reward tokens, registering tasks, receiving notification that the task is completed, determining the task has been completed, modifying the tasks and based on the determining providing reward token which is a process that deals with commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106). The additional elements of the claims such as, NFT, server, a first/second computer apparatus, sensor, blockchain and processor merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, NFT, server, a first/second computer apparatus, sensor, blockchain and processor perform the steps storing a reward tokens, registering tasks, receiving notification that the task is completed, determining the task has been completed, modifying the tasks and based on the determining providing reward token. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer 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)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), 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. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of providing a reward based on a task completion. 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(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Further, with respect to “regulatory compliance and blockchain based security” these are business process and not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Claims are not directed to any improvement in computer technology. Claims are directed to providing a reward based on a task completion. Applicant must take into consideration that in order to view the claims as supplying an inventive concept the technological improvement must be present within the claims themselves (Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, inc., 108 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013)), (Synopsys, inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp... 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, specification does not provide any evidence that how the claims provide an improvement to functioning of computing systems, any other technology or technical field. Applicant failed to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-10 have been examined.
Claims 2-3 and 7 have been canceled by the Applicant.
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, 4-6 and 8-10 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.
In the instance case, claims 1, 4-5 are directed to a data management system, claims 6, 8, 10 are directed to a method and claim 9 is directed to a server comprising a processor. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims are directed to providing a reward based on a task completion which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims 1 and 6 recite “…manages a ... asset…; … registers each of a plurality of target conditions…; …notifies…of a target condition…; …obtains … driving parameter… for determining….; …modifies the selected target condition…; … issues…associated with the achieved target condition…; and “storing…transaction data…; registering a target condition…; obtaining …driving parameters…; and giving when the vehicle has achieve the target condition…” respectively, grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of storing a reward tokens, registering tasks, receiving notification that the task is completed, determining the task has been completed, modifying the tasks and based on the determining providing reward token which is a process that deals with commercial or legal interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
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), the additional elements of the claims such as, NFT, server, a first/second computer apparatus, sensor, blockchain and processor merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, NFT, server, a first/second computer apparatus, sensor, blockchain and processor perform the steps storing a reward tokens, registering tasks, receiving notification that the task is completed, determining the task has been completed, modifying the tasks and based on the determining providing reward token. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer 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)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), 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 claims 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 (MPEP 2106), the additional elements of NFT, server, a first/second computer apparatus, sensor, blockchain and processor, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of providing a reward based on a task completion. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, NFT, server, a first/second computer apparatus, sensor, blockchain and processor perform the steps of storing a reward tokens, registering tasks, receiving notification that the task is completed, determining the task has been completed, modifying the tasks and based on the determining providing reward token. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of providing a reward based on a task completion. 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(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of providing a reward based on a task completion. Specifically, claims 4-5 further describe the additional elements which are used as a tool to implement the abstract idea of providing a reward based on a task completion, claims 8 and 10 further describing registration and target conditions which is part pf the abstract idea. 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.
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 ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
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 W 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697