DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed 09/11/2025.
Claims 1-12 are cancelled.
Claims 13-27, 20 and 30 are amended.
Claims 13-30 are pending.
Claims 13-30 have been examined.
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 .
Priority
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/666,368 (including any material incorporated by reference), fails to provide adequate support in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 for one or more claims of this application. The above-listed application fails to provide support for the claims. For the above reasons, the claims affected and their dependents are being compared to the prior art based on a filing date of the continuation of May 3, 2019.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues “nevertheless currently amended claim 19 recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements are the active involvement of the non-fraudulent current owner of the product unit, and the practical application is proving the non-fraudulent ownership of the product unit to reduce fraud associated with the product unit.” Examiner disagrees.
The amended claims that show this “active involvement” recite “transmitting the notification of the request to the non-fraudulent current owner; g. receiving an explicit response to the notification of the request from the non-fraudulent current owner.” Sending and receiving information are insignificant extra solution activity of a generic computer. They are not additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the reduction of fraud in a transaction is drawn to the abstract idea of mitigating risk as a fundamental economic practice. The rejection is maintained.
112
Due to Applicant’s amendments, prior 112 rejections are withdrawn.
103
Tran discusses the reduction of fraud in transfer transactions stating, “Furthermore, the transaction is visible in the shared transaction ledger (140), making the possibly fraudulent activity immediately or relatively quickly traceable… Making property smart decreases risks of running into fraud, mediation fees, and questionable business situations. At the same time, it increases trust and efficiency… The process not only cuts down on fraud, such as double spending or spams, but also transfers funds simply, safely, and fast.” (Tran; ¶ 126, 783, 784)
Tran discloses a. registering an ID for the product unit within a smart contract deployed within a ledger computer system among a plurality of computer nodes to define an a non-fraudulent current owner of said product unit (¶ 106-109, 122-124, 182, 186, 191, 206-209, 217, 253-256, 288, 291, 296, 328-350, 405-500, 783, 809-811, 852-862);
Tran - a product may be any tangible or intangible thing that may be exchanged for value… the first code is incorporated in a manufacturing control system (not shown) that may rely upon codes, such as barcodes or NFC/RFID tags, to provide automatic identification of products…the first computing 201 is configured to export an address to a first code such as a bar code affixed to a product… Upon receipt by a bar code scanner or an NFC scanner, the product authenticity can be verified…n some embodiments, the transaction register includes a block chain. In one embodiment, the block chain is a transaction register that records one or more new secured transactions in a data item known as a block… A tangible or intangible property, such as cars, houses, or cookers, on the one hand, or patents, property titles, or company shares, on the other, can have smart technology embedded in them. Such registration can be stored on the ledger along with contractual details of others who are allowed ownership in this property. Smart keys can be used to facilitate access to the permitted party. The ledger stores and allows the exchange of these smart keys once the contract is verified. The decentralized ledger also becomes a system for recording and managing property rights as well as enabling the smart contracts to be duplicated if records or the smart key is lost (¶ 344-346, 350, 783)
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 13-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (101 Analysis: Step 1). Even if the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (101 Analysis: Step 2a(Prong 1), and if so, Identify whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluate those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. (101 Analysis: Step 2a (Prong 2). If additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception, claim still requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. If the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself (there is an inventive concept in the claim), the claim is eligible. If the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more (there is no inventive concept in the claim), the claim is ineligible. (101 Analysis: Step 2b).
The 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: a) Mathematical concepts b) Certain methods of organizing human activity and c) Mental processes
Analysis
In the instant case, claim 19 is directed to a method, and claim 29 is directed to an article of manufacture.
Step 2a.1– Identifying an Abstract Idea
The claims recite the steps of “registering the ID ...receiving a request ... submitting a request ... executing said smart contract .... generating a notification .... transmitting notification,… receiving a response… approving the notification ... validating the approved notification ... confirming the ownership ...generating an ownership notification ....” The claim recites an abstract idea that is directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity in a commercial interaction, in this case, registering a product, retrieving ownership information from a database to confirm ownership information and sending notifications.. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.
Step 2a.2 – Identifying a Practical Application
The claim does currently recite an additional element but the additional element does not that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
First, the use of a smart contract in the distributed ledger or blockchain does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as executing the smart contract in the blockchain recites functions of a generic computer component, such as storing product records that include ownership information. The smart contract is recited and acts as any database with stored data and is not an additional element.
According to the disclosure(¶ 8, 33, 63, 81), “Validation of product unit can be done by scanning QR code (or other physical form of SLID). Validation of product unit shall not require proprietary consumer application and can be done using customary QR code scanner (or any other depending on the way of SLID representation).... these actions can take place in real-time, wherein the scanning of a product code begins the sales process,”. Additionally, from the claims, the purpose of the claims is for proving ownership of a product unit, there does not seem to be a connection between registering/scanning the product and proving ownership of the product.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment do not amount to practical applications. The claim in directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim limitations recite “confirming the ownership” are not additional elements and they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible.
Viewed as a whole, instructions/method claims recite the concept of a commercial interaction as performed by a generic computer. The claims do not currently recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a network, and/or merely uses a network as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claims 13-18, 20-28 and 30 discuss functions in more descriptive detail of the steps geared toward the abstract idea. As such, these elements do not provide the significantly more to the underlying abstract idea necessary to render the invention patentable.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Therefore, based on case law precedent, the claims are claiming subject matter similar to concepts already identified by the courts as dealing with abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561, U.S. 593, 611 (2010)).
The claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 573 U.S. 208. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and limitations to a particular field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. 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.
Conclusion
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical filed; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency of independent claims and accordingly stand rejected under 35 USC 101 based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims 13-18, 20-28 and 30 are also rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 13-30 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.
Claims 19 and 29 recite “receiving a request to prove the non-fraudulent ownership of the product unit, wherein the request contains a scanned ID for the product unit; c. submitting a request to the smart contract to confirm the non-fraudulent ownership of the product unit on the ledger computer system”. According to the disclosure(¶ 25, 63, 66-68, 84), “Thus, FIG. 5 shows a further embodiment of how the consumer (41) can confirm ownership, by again scanning a product code (45) and initiating proof of ownership request (91), which sends the proof of ownership request (92) to the blockchain platform (42) and smart contract (43),… scanning the ID on said product unit and submitting a request to confirm the ownership on the ledger.” The disclosure recites scanning the product and submitting a request. The disclosure does not provide for the limitations of receiving a request to prove the non-fraudulent ownership of the product unit with the request having the scanned ID, nor the step of submitting another request to confirm the non-fraudulent ownership of the product unit on the ledger computer system. There is no disclosure support for the limitations. Dependent claims 13-18, 20-28 and 30 are also rejected.
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 13-30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 19 and 29 recite “receiving a request to prove the non-fraudulent ownership of the product unit, wherein the request contains a scanned ID for the product unit; c. submitting a request to the smart contract to confirm the non-fraudulent ownership of the product unit on the ledger computer system”, and subsequently, “the request” recited in these and the dependent claims. Given the multiple requests that are received and submitted, it is unclear which “request” is being referenced in the claims. Dependent claims 13-18, 20-28 and 30 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tran (US 20200117690) (“Tran”).
Regarding claims 19 and 29,Tran discloses a. registering an ID for the product unit within a smart contract deployed within a ledger computer system among a plurality of computer nodes to define an a non-fraudulent current owner of said product unit (¶ 106-109, 122-124, 182, 186, 191, 206-209, 217, 253-256, 288, 291, 296, 328-350, 405-500, 783, 809-811, 852-862);
Tran - a product may be any tangible or intangible thing that may be exchanged for value… the first code is incorporated in a manufacturing control system (not shown) that may rely upon codes, such as barcodes or NFC/RFID tags, to provide automatic identification of products…the first computing 201 is configured to export an address to a first code such as a bar code affixed to a product… Upon receipt by a bar code scanner or an NFC scanner, the product authenticity can be verified…n some embodiments, the transaction register includes a block chain. In one embodiment, the block chain is a transaction register that records one or more new secured transactions in a data item known as a block… A tangible or intangible property, such as cars, houses, or cookers, on the one hand, or patents, property titles, or company shares, on the other, can have smart technology embedded in them. Such registration can be stored on the ledger along with contractual details of others who are allowed ownership in this property. Smart keys can be used to facilitate access to the permitted party. The ledger stores and allows the exchange of these smart keys once the contract is verified. The decentralized ledger also becomes a system for recording and managing property rights as well as enabling the smart contracts to be duplicated if records or the smart key is lost (¶ 344-346, 350, 783)
b. receiving a request to prove the non-fraudulent ownership of the product unit, wherein the request contains a scanned ID for the product unit; c. submitting a request to the smart contract to confirm the non-fraudulent ownership of the product unit on the ledger computer system; executing said smart contract to identify the non-fraudulent current owner upon receipt of said request; (¶ 177-185, 189, 247-249, 252-258, 283, 359, 862);
Claim Interpretation – According to the disclosure(¶ 25, 63, 67, 84), “Thus, FIG. 5 shows a further embodiment of how the consumer (41) can confirm ownership, by again scanning a product code (45) and initiating proof of ownership request (91), which sends the proof of ownership request (92) to the blockchain platform (42) and smart contract (43),”
Tran - When Provider 1 adds a record for a new patient, using the GRLT on the blockchain, the patient's identifying information is first resolved to their matching Ethereum address and the corresponding PPLT is located. Provider 1 uses a cached GRLT table to look up any existing records of the patient in the PPLT. For all matching PPLTs, Provider 1 broadcasts a smart contract requesting patient information to all matching PPLT entries… The request is cryptographically signed by the issuer, allowing the gatekeeper to confirm identities. Once the issuer's signature is certified, the gatekeeper checks the blockchain contracts to verify if the address issuing the request is allowed access to the query. (¶ 255, 257)
e. generating a notification of the request to the non-fraudulent current owner (Figure 3G; ¶177, 184);
Tran - A transaction message 322 includes a transaction 303 and the sender's digital signature 332 of the transaction…The transaction 323 is digitally signed by the sender's private key to create a digital signature 332 for verifying the sender's identity to the network nodes. (¶ 184)
f. transmitting the notification of the request to the non-fraudulent current owner; g. receiving an explicit response to the notification of the request from the non-fraudulent current owner (Figure 3G; ¶177-190, 247-249);
Tran - n this embodiment, the transaction message 322 includes the transaction 303 for a product and the sender's digital signature 332 of the transaction 323. …The transaction 323 is digitally signed by the sender's private key to create a digital signature 332 for verifying the sender's identity to the network nodes. … After a Blockchain stock transaction (i.e., a message indicating a change of ownership) is broadcast to the network, the nodes verify in their respective ledgers that the sender has proper chain of title, based on previously recorded ownership entries for that Blockchain token and the first valid transaction or order is accepted. (¶ 179, 185)
h. approving the notification based on the explicit response from the non-fraudulent current owner to form an approved notification (¶ 179-185);
Tran - The transaction 323 is digitally signed by the sender's private key to create a digital signature 332 for verifying the sender's identity to the network nodes. The network nodes decrypt the digital signature 332, via the sender's previously exchanged public key, (¶ 184)
i.validating the approved notification among the plurality of computer nodes(¶ 178-180, 184, 185, 325, 353);
Tran - After a Blockchain stock transaction (i.e., a message indicating a change of ownership) is broadcast to the network, the nodes verify in their respective ledgers that the sender has proper chain of title, based on previously recorded ownership entries for that Blockchain token and the first valid transaction or order is accepted. (¶ 179)
j. upon consensus among the plurality of computer nodes, confirming the non-fraudulent ownership of said product unit; and (¶ 178- 185, 252, 357, 370);
Tran - After a Blockchain stock transaction (i.e., a message indicating a change of ownership) is broadcast to the network, the nodes verify in their respective ledgers that the sender has proper chain of title, based on previously recorded ownership entries for that Blockchain token and the first valid transaction or order is accepted… Verification of a transaction is based on mutual consensus among the nodes. For example, to verify that the sender has the right to pass ownership to a receiver, the nodes compare their respective ledgers to see if there is a break in the chain of title….If they match, the sender's authenticity is verified and, after a proper chain of ownership is verified via the ledgers (as explained above), the receiver is recorded in the ledgers as the new Blockchain token 329 owner. (¶ 179, 184)
k. generating an ownership notification of the non-fraudulent ownership such that fraud associated with the product unit is reduced (¶ 126, 178, 179, 184, 185, 252, 325, 351, 784);
Tran - If they match, the sender's authenticity is verified and, after a proper chain of ownership is verified via the ledgers (as explained above), the receiver is recorded in the ledgers as the new Blockchain token 329 owner…The process not only cuts down on fraud, such as double spending or spams, but also transfers funds simply, safely, and fast…. Furthermore, the transaction is visible in the shared transaction ledger (140), making the possibly fraudulent activity immediately or relatively quickly traceable. (¶ 126, 184, 784)
Regarding claim 14, Tran discloses herein the process of the non- fraudulent current owner approving the transaction request to transfer non-fraudulent ownership to a requester comprises wherein the approving is performed by the non-fraudulent current owner signing the transaction request and wherein the validation is of the signature (¶ 177-185, 189, 247-249, 252-258, 283, 359, 862).
Regarding claim 15, Tran discloses wherein the transaction request is generated by a requester (¶ 177-185, 189, 247-249, 252-258, 283, 359, 862).
Regarding claim 16, Tran discloses wherein registering said ID within a computer node defines an a non-fraudulent owner and information regarding said non-fraudulent owner (¶ 186, 191, 207-209, 217, 288, 291, 296, 328-346).
Regarding claim 17, Tran discloses wherein the step of submitting the transaction request generates a PIN (¶ 120-122, 189, 190, 217, 255-257).
Regarding claim 18, Tran discloses wherein the PIN must be confirmed before change of non-fraudulent ownership within the first and second computer nodes in the ledger computer system (¶ 120-122, 189, 190, 217, 255-257).
Regarding claim 20, Tran discloses il. validating the request to confirm ownership from step (c); i2. validating the notification from step (e); i3. validating the approved notification from step (h); and i4. validating the resulting ownership notification from step (k) wherein each validating step comprises registering to one or more computer nodes (¶ 178, 179, 184, 185).
Regarding claim 21, Tran discloses registering the ID within at least one computer node (¶ 207-209, 288, 291, 296, 325-346, 369-371, 391, 783).
Regarding claim 22, Tran discloses wherein each computer node has a complete copy of transaction data. (¶ 178, 179, 184, 185, 325, 353, 370)
Regarding claim 23, Tran discloses wherein the transaction data is partitioned among the plurality of computer nodes (¶ 79, 80, 172, 178, 179, 184, 185, 325, 370, 391).
Regarding claim 24, Tran discloses wherein in step (f) the smart contract is executed via submitting the request to a public address in the ledger computer system (¶ 112, 123, 132, 154, 177, 252-257, 283, 357, 392).
Regarding claim 25, Tran discloses wherein after step (d), two further steps are performed before step (e): d1. validating a data point, said data point defining at least the non-fraudulent current owner among the plurality of computer nodes within the ledger computer system; and d2. forming a consensus of said data point from said plurality of computer nodes (¶ 107, 178, 179, 184, 185, 325, 391, 392).
Regarding claim 26, Tran discloses wherein submitting the request from step (c) and approving the notification from step (h) are signed with a digital signature (¶ 177-179, 184, 185, 271, 283, 357).
Regarding claim 27, Tran discloses wherein in step (d) the smart contract is executed by checking the transaction data inside the smart contract within one or more computer nodes (¶ 107, 109, 120, 177, 283, 811, 863, 904).
Regarding claim 28, Tran discloses wherein each step includes a request, a notification, or a confirmation validated via an API (¶ 107, 177, 377, 978, 983).
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 13 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US 20200117690) (“Tran”), and further in view of Holloway et al. (US 2017/0331896) (“Holloway”).
Regarding claims 13 and 30, Tran discloses registering said ID within a first computer node within said ledger computer system (¶ 186, 191, 207-209, 217, 288, 291, 296, 328-346); n. scanning the ID and submitting a transaction request to the ledger computer system; o. processing the transaction request and upon receipt of said transaction request executing a series of code to identify a non-fraudulent current owner and registering the transaction request in the ledger computer system wherein the execution defines a change in at least one transaction data and wherein said transaction data is validated and synced between the first computer node and at least second computer node in the ledger computer system; p. receiving a notification of the transaction request by the non-fraudulent current owner and defining a transfer approval wherein said non-fraudulent current owner approves the transaction request to transfer to a requester (¶ 186, 191, 207-209, 217, 288, 291, 296, 328-346); q. wherein the transfer approval triggers execution of a self executing code to match the transfer approval with the transaction request, validate the transfer approval, and confirm the change in non-fraudulent ownership by registering transaction data on the first computer node and the at least second computer node within the ledger computer system (¶ 178- 185, 252); and s. generating a notification confirming the change in non-fraudulent ownership such that fraud associated with the change in ownership is reduced (¶ 126, 178, 179, 184, 185, 252, 325, 351, 784).
Tran does not disclose m. propagating the ID within at least a second computer node within said ledger computer system; r. wherein data is partitioned among a plurality of computer nodes wherein within each partition each of the plurality of computer nodes has a complete copy of all transactions, wherein the data from the computer nodes is synched to at least one public ledger, and wherein a hash of transactions from said computer nodes is synced with the public ledger.
Holloway teaches m. propagating the ID within at least a second computer node within said ledger computer system (¶ 27, 28, 58, 76, 91-93, 110-119); r. wherein data is partitioned among a plurality of computer nodes wherein within each partition each of the plurality of computer nodes has a complete copy of all transactions, wherein the data from the computer nodes is synched to at least one public ledger, and wherein a hash of transactions from said computer nodes is synced with the public ledger(¶ 88-107). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tran and Holloway in order to transfer assets in a distributed consensus network (Holloway; ¶ 1-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Jong (US 2019/0130484) teaches asset transfer, smart contracts in a distributed ledger.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ILSE I IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00pm.
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, NEHA H PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/ILSE I IMMANUEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699 .