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 filed on 11/26/2025. Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19 are amended. Claims 1-19 are pending examination.
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 1-19 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 is drawn to a method, claim 10 is drawn to a system, and claim 19 is drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium. As such, claims 1, 10, and 19 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One, the claimed invention is directed to a method for classifying and controlling access to data related to vehicle seats via smart contracts on a blockchain. The claims recite, detecting data, classifying data as public or proprietary via data maintenance contract, storing data in blockchain-accessible repository, processing access requests via security smart contract and controlling access to proprietary data based on authorization. These steps recite data classification, storage and access control which are similar to organizational practices which could be performed mental or with pen and paper and not inherently technological. The claims are directed to abstract idea of organizing and controlling access information.
Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements such as one or more processors, smart contracts, blockchain and executing logic, are described at a high level of generality. These elements are conventional in blockchain and computing environment which are used merely as tools to implement the abstract idea. There is no transformation of data into a different state or thing. The steps do not improve computer functionality nor effect a transformation of matter.
Step 2B, the claims do not recite an inventive concept that transforms the abstract into patent eligible subject matter. The use of blockchain, smart contract, public and private key encryption is well known routine and conventional. The functions of detecting data, classifying it, and enforcing access rights are basic and performed using generic computer functions. There is specific, unconventional technological solution to a technological problem. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the amended claim 1 is directed to a specific technological solution, not an abstract organizational concept. The claimed solution is inherently technological with the claimed automatic generation of data-specific smart contracts to create a secure repository where proprietary data is protected. Individualized security smart contracts containing authorization data are not an abstract organizational practice but a concrete technological implementation. For at least these reasons. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is eligible at Step 2A, Prong One because claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception.
In response, the arguments are not persuasive. The amended claim continues to describe steps such as classifying data, creating rules, encrypting information, receiving access requests, checking authorization, and granting or denying access. These operations, even when performed automatically or on a blockchain, still reflect a general access control, rather than specific technological improvement. The smart contracts in the claim carry out basic conditional logic and are used in the manner typical of existing blockchain systems. The processors, encryption, and contract deployment also appear to operate in their conventional manner. Therefore, the claim using known computer tools to implement an information management approach rather than solving a technological problem in a technical way. For these reasons, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
The amended claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The blockchain, smart contract, encryption, and processors are used conventionally to carry out the access control. The claim does not recite any improvement to blockchain technology, smart contract execution, data storage, encryption methods or computer operation. The technology is used for implementing the abstract data classification and authorization access. Therefore, the claim does not amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The claim does not provide an inventive step. The additional elements are generic. Automatically generating a security smart contract based on classification logic is automation of ordinary rule creation. Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the elements of the claim do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim fails to provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
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