- 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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on
03/17/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4,6-11 and 14-22 of copending Application No. 17/677,657. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are directed to a method and claims 10-15 are directed to a system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groups: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independents claims 1, 10, and 16 include limitations that recite at least one abstract idea.
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “creating a property registry on a decentralized computer platform including a processor and a memory, wherein the computer platform is implemented on a distributed ledger; the property registry storing at least one data definition, wherein a property including a name, a data type, and a source is defined by the at least one data definition, wherein the property is stored in the property registry; a source registry executing a smart contract to access the property stored in the property registry; adding the property to the source registry, the source registry deploying a smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address based on at least one control model to enable the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model; the source registry executing a smart contract for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property; assigning at least one value to the property and storing the at least one value in a memory of a value registry; the value registry mapping at least one class to the property; and accessing the at least one value using at least one key associated with an object identifier or the property.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim is managing trusted data by defining data properties, assigning access authorization, verifying authorization, and controlling access, editing, or deletion of data based on rules, roles, policies, and control models, and hence falls under organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea of “a decentralized computer platform including a processor and a memory; wherein the decentralized computer platform accesses a distributed ledger; wherein the decentralized computer platform includes an attestation registry comprising a property registry, a source registry, a value registry, an option registry, and a unit conversion registry; wherein the property registry defines at least one property including a name, data, a data type, and a source, wherein the at least one property is stored in the property registry; wherein the source registry governs access to the property stored in the property registry by deploying a smart contract based on at least one control model for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model; wherein the value registry includes at least one value associated with the property, wherein the at least one value is accessed by an authorized party using at least one key associated with an object identifier and/or the property; wherein the options registry stores a list of constraint options, wherein the constraint options are enumerations of the at least one value stored in the value registry; and wherein the unit conversion registry includes a list of one or more smart contracts for converting the data from a first unit format into a second unit format..” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim is managing trusted data by defining data properties, assigning access authorization, verifying authorization, and controlling access, editing, or deletion of data based on rules, roles, policies, and control models, and hence falls under organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Claim 16 is directed to the abstract idea of “creating a property registry on a decentralized computer platform including a processor and a memory, wherein the computer platform is implemented on a distributed ledger; the property registry storing at least one data definition, wherein a property including a name, data, a data type, and a source is defined by the at least one data definition, wherein the property is stored in the property registry; the property registry using a primary key of the property registry to indicate the location of the name, the data type, and the source within the property registry; a source registry executing a smart contract to access the property stored in the property registry, wherein the source registry uses a foreign key of the source registry to access the property, wherein the foreign key of the source registry indicates the location of the name, the data type, and the source within the property registry; adding the property to the source registry, the source registry deploying a smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address based on at least one control model to enable the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model; the source registry executing a smart contract for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property; assigning at least two values to the property and storing the at least two values in a memory of a value registry the value registry mapping at least one class to the property; accessing the at least two values using at least two keys associated with an object identifier or the property; and an options list registry executing a smart contract for enumerating at least one combination of the at least two values stored in the value registry, wherein the enumeration is stored in the options list registry.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim is managing trusted data by defining data properties, assigning access authorization, verifying authorization, and controlling access, editing, or deletion of data based on rules, roles, policies, and control models, and hence falls under organizing human activity (i.e., as fundamental economic practices).
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Claims 1, 10, and 16 recites to a decentralized computer platform, processor, memory, distributed ledger, registries, smart contracts, RBAC/control model, smart contract address, object identifiers keys, oracle, class registry, class template, option registry, unit conversion registry, and plug-in conversion logic, as additional elements to the judicial exception in the preamble. Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are used to implement the abstract idea of manage trusted data by defining data properties, assigning access authorization, verifying authorization, and controlling access, editing, or deletion of data based on rules, roles, policies, and control models. The claims do not recite to a particular improvement to the functioning of the computer or technology implemented. Rather, the additional elements are used to store, verify, and enforce data-management and authorization rules. Therefore, at Step 2A.2, these additional elements do not act in combination to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2 and 11 recites: wherein the at least one value stored in the memory of the value registry is automatically updated when the at least one value is updated. These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 12 recites: wherein the data type is a Boolean data type, an integer data type, a decimal data type, a string data type date and time data type, an object data type, and/or a pointer data type.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the data type is a pointer data type, wherein the pointer data type points to a second pointer data type of a second property, wherein the second pointer data type points to a value.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 5, 13 and 17 recites: wherein authorization of the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property is granted based on a role of the smart contract address, an attribute of the smart contract address, a policy of the smart contract address, authorization granted to the smart contract address by a property owner, and/or authorization granted to the smart contract address by a property creator.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the source registry implements an oracle smart contract for creation and/or identification of at least one complex policy.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 19 recites: wherein a property is created using a class registry, wherein the class registry stores a class template, the class template mapping at least one behavior including an event, an interface, and/or a function, wherein a class template is selected from the class registry to enable the property to inherit the at least one behavior mapped by the class template.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites: further comprising adding at least one additional behavior, including at least one additional event, at least one additional interface, and/or at least one additional function to the class template to produce a new class template, wherein the property displays the at least one behavior and the at least one additional behavior, wherein adding the at least one additional behavior to the class template does not generate new code in the new class template.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 9 and 20 recites: further comprising at least one developer updating the code of the smart contract for accessing the property stored in the property registry, the smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address, and/or the smart contract for verifying authorization.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites: further comprising an oracle, wherein the oracle accesses a third party platform to determine a rate of conversion for converting the data from the first unit format into the second unit format.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites: wherein the unit conversion registry receives an input of a plug-in conversion logic, wherein the data is in a first unit format, wherein the second unit format is the desired format of the data, wherein the plug-in conversion logic automatically converts the data from the first unit format into a second unit format.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the source registry implements an oracle smart contract for creation and/or identification of at least one complex policy, wherein a policy engine executes a policy engine smart contract to determine compliance of a proposed access, a proposed edit, and/or a proposed deletion of the property with the at least one complex policy.; These limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Viewed as a whole, the instructions/claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, including the decentralized computer platform, processor, memory, distributed ledger, registries, smart contracts, RBAC/control model, smart contract address, object identifiers keys, oracle, class registry, class template, option registry, unit conversion registry, and plug-in conversion logic are recited to perform generic computer functions such as storing data, accessing data, assigning authorization, verifying authorization, mapping values, updating values, and converting data formats. The claims do not recite to a specific technical improvement to the computer, distributed ledger, registry, smart contract, or network. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, and do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. Therefore, the claim is 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boston et al. (US 20210027196 A1), in view of Doney et al. (US 20210042836 A1), and further in view of Gunning et al. (US 11398911 B1).
7. Regarding Claim 1, Boston discloses A method of managing trusted data on a decentralized network,
comprising: creating a property registry on a decentralized computer platform including a processor and a memory, wherein the computer platform is implemented on a distributed ledger, (Para. 0008, The system may include: (i) a blockchain comprising a plurality of nodes operating on computer servers, wherein the nodes are connected via a network; (ii) an electronic database for storing the plurality of electronic documents; and (iii) at least one computer processor, wherein the at least one computer processor is programmed with software to: (a) with a document analysis module, receive at least one electronic document, generate a corresponding smart contract and metadata, and transmit the smart contract and the metadata to the blockchain for storage in a block on the blockchain, wherein the metadata specifies a curation status for the at least one electronic document, and the smart contract controls document access to the at least one electronic document; (b) with a curation module, using the smart contract and the metadata, determine a set of electronic documents that qualify to be reviewed by a curator, retrieve the at least one electronic document from the electronic database and present the at least one electronic document to the curator, receive from the curator an indication of whether the at least one electronic document constitutes training data, and save the indication as metadata in the block on the blockchain; and (c) with a modeling module, retrieve a plurality of electronic documents from the electronic database that have been designated as training data, and train the computer model using the designated documents as training data.)
the property registry storing at least one data definition, wherein a property including a name, a data type, and a source is defined by the at least one data definition, wherein the property is stored in the property registry, (Para. 0030, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about the reviewed document 10. For example, the metadata 11 can indicate (i) the ownership of the reviewed document 10, (ii) the location of the reviewed document 10, (iii) whether the reviewed document 10 needs to be retained or purged, and (iv) information about the particular keys required to access the reviewed document. The smart contract 12 can include computer protocols that execute when predefined conditions occur. For example, the smart contract 12 can execute specific protocols when the knowledge worker begins to curate a plurality of reviewed documents; and Para. 0035, FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of metadata created by the document analysis module 20 of data exchange system in FIG. 1. As depicted in the figure, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about a particular document 10, e.g., (i) the current name, (ii) the original name, (iii) provenance information, (iv) ownership information, (v) location information, (vi) whether the knowledge worker curator approved the document for use as training data, (vii) whether a data scientist curator approved the document for use as training data, (viii) whether the document is associated with a retention or purge policy, and (ix) the keys to access, open, and read the document, respectively. According to an embodiment, knowledge worker curators review the improvement data to determine whether the data provides a good example of the concept (for example, is “560 Lexington Avenue” a good example of the concept “Property Address” for an appraisal). The data science curator would instead be considering whether this same example is an appropriate example given the overall model itself (e.g., does this example demonstrate a possible flaw in the typology of the system, or demonstrate the need for a new modeling technique). The keys are used to provide permissions to users (both human and machine) to access the database 40. Once a user is allowed to have access, they can be given a key that is used in an access request to the database. The database only allows users with specific permissions (through those keys) to access the appropriate information.)
a source registry executing a smart contract to access the property stored in the property registry, (Para. 0035, FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of metadata created by the document analysis module 20 of data exchange system in FIG. 1. As depicted in the figure, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about a particular document 10, e.g., (i) the current name, (ii) the original name, (iii) provenance information, (iv) ownership information, (v) location information, (vi) whether the knowledge worker curator approved the document for use as training data, (vii) whether a data scientist curator approved the document for use as training data, (viii) whether the document is associated with a retention or purge policy, and (ix) the keys to access, open, and read the document, respectively. According to an embodiment, knowledge worker curators review the improvement data to determine whether the data provides a good example of the concept (for example, is “560 Lexington Avenue” a good example of the concept “Property Address” for an appraisal). The data science curator would instead be considering whether this same example is an appropriate example given the overall model itself (e.g., does this example demonstrate a possible flaw in the typology of the system, or demonstrate the need for a new modeling technique). The keys are used to provide permissions to users (both human and machine) to access the database 40. Once a user is allowed to have access, they can be given a key that is used in an access request to the database. The database only allows users with specific permissions (through those keys) to access the appropriate information.)
assigning at least one value to the property and storing the at least one value in a memory of a value registry, (Para. 0008, The system may include: (i) a blockchain comprising a plurality of nodes operating on computer servers, wherein the nodes are connected via a network; (ii) an electronic database for storing the plurality of electronic documents; and (iii) at least one computer processor, wherein the at least one computer processor is programmed with software to: (a) with a document analysis module, receive at least one electronic document, generate a corresponding smart contract and metadata, and transmit the smart contract and the metadata to the blockchain for storage in a block on the blockchain, wherein the metadata specifies a curation status for the at least one electronic document, and the smart contract controls document access to the at least one electronic document; (b) with a curation module, using the smart contract and the metadata, determine a set of electronic documents that qualify to be reviewed by a curator, retrieve the at least one electronic document from the electronic database and present the at least one electronic document to the curator, receive from the curator an indication of whether the at least one electronic document constitutes training data, and save the indication as metadata in the block on the blockchain; and (c) with a modeling module, retrieve a plurality of electronic documents from the electronic database that have been designated as training data, and train the computer model using the designated documents as training data.; and Para. 0032, the document analysis module 20 can also provide the annotated and reviewed document 10 to the database 40. According to an embodiment, the database 40 can store a large amount of raw data in its native format. For example, the database 40 can be utilized to store documents 10 and other potential training data in their respective native formats.)
and accessing the at least one value using at least one key associated with an object identifier or the property, (Para. 0035, FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of metadata created by the document analysis module 20 of data exchange system in FIG. 1. As depicted in the figure, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about a particular document 10, e.g., (i) the current name, (ii) the original name, (iii) provenance information, (iv) ownership information, (v) location information, (vi) whether the knowledge worker curator approved the document for use as training data, (vii) whether a data scientist curator approved the document for use as training data, (viii) whether the document is associated with a retention or purge policy, and (ix) the keys to access, open, and read the document, respectively. According to an embodiment, knowledge worker curators review the improvement data to determine whether the data provides a good example of the concept (for example, is “560 Lexington Avenue” a good example of the concept “Property Address” for an appraisal). The data science curator would instead be considering whether this same example is an appropriate example given the overall model itself (e.g., does this example demonstrate a possible flaw in the typology of the system, or demonstrate the need for a new modeling technique). The keys are used to provide permissions to users (both human and machine) to access the database 40. Once a user is allowed to have access, they can be given a key that is used in an access request to the database. The database only allows users with specific permissions (through those keys) to access the appropriate information.)
Boston does not explicitly disclose adding the property to the source registry, the source registry deploying a smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address based on at least one control model to enable the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model; the source registry executing a smart contract for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property.
However, Doney teaches adding the property to the source registry, the source registry deploying a smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address based on at least one control model to enable the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model; the source registry executing a smart contract for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property, (Abstract Section, An apparatus, computer-readable medium, and computer-implemented method to facilitate scalable compliance and issuer governance of decentralized financial transactions especially for the trade and transfer of tokenized securities. The resulting Compliance Aware Tokens contain the rulesets to restrict transactions and facilitate regulatory reporting and oversight. The embodied process, includes of a novel combination of compliance workflows, attribute verification tools, smart contracts and other ledger controls, provides a decentralized Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) capability. ABAC patterns are extended to govern global financial transactions without the need for an active intermediary.; and Para. 0031-0032, Implementations include a novel combination of compliance workflows, attribute verification tools, a scalable key/lock model for enforcement, smart contracts and other ledger controls to provide a decentralized Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) framework to govern global financial tokenized transactions without the need for an active intermediary. Through ABAC, abstractions of smart contracts, and the sharing of recipes, implementations provide methods to govern on chain and off chain transactions. In a traditional ABAC model, users' access to objects, such as documents and data, in an enterprise is governed by a policy enforcement point (PEP). The user makes an electronic request for access to an object. The PEP consults with a policy decision service (PDS) which in turn gathers the appropriate policy and attribute data to provide a decision on access. If granted, the user is provided access to the object.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Doney would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate (RBAC) model features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include adding the property to the source registry, the source registry deploying a smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address based on at least one control model to enable the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model; the source registry executing a smart contract for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property result in an improved invention because applying said technique will provide an additional layer of security to the data management process by preventing unauthorized access, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Boston as modified does not explicitly disclose the value registry mapping at least one class to the property.
However, Gunning teaches the value registry mapping at least one class to the property, (Column 1/line 48, Some embodiments can include a blockchain computing system, comprising: a computer system having a processor and a memory, the computer system configured to: receive instructions to generate a class object; generate a class object; record the class object or instructions to recreate the class object onto a blockchain ledger; receive instructions to generate an instance of the class object; retrieve the class object from the blockchain ledger; process the class object to generate a first instance of the class object; and record the first instance of the class object or instructions to recreate the first instance of the class object onto the blockchain ledger.; and Column 1/line 59, In some embodiments, the class object comprises an object that defines characteristics for instances that are created for the class object. In some embodiments, the characteristics include one or more functions for the corresponding instance. In some embodiments, the characteristics include one or more properties for the corresponding instance. In some embodiments, the properties include initial properties.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Gunning would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate table structures features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include the value registry mapping at least one class to the property result in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that objects can create and or interact with other blockchain based objects using the pre-defined templates, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Boston discloses wherein the at least one value stored in the memory of the value registry is automatically updated when the at least one value is updated, (Para. 0031-0032, According to an embodiment, the distributed ledger in blockchain 30 is stored on a plurality of nodes 31, with each node being associated with a cryptographically-verified corresponding ledger 32. With the blockchain 30, the annotated and reviewed document 10's origin, chain of possession, and modifications can be tracked, traced, and presented chronologically in the cryptographically-verified ledger 32 to each participant of the blockchain 30. In particular, each “event” in the lifecycle of the reviewed document 10 may be considered a transaction, with the corresponding data being written on the chain as a new block. As such, the ledger 32 can provide an audit trail corresponding to all of the events in the lifecycle of the reviewed document 10, as well as who interacted with that event and when. According to an embodiment, each node may comprise one or more computer servers which provide processing capability and memory storage. Any changes made by any of the nodes 31 to a corresponding ledger 32 will be automatically reflected in every other ledger 32 in the blockchain 30. As such, with the distributed ledger in the blockchain 30, provenance may be provided with the dissemination of identical copies of the ledger 32, which has cryptographic proof of its validity, to each of the nodes…the database 40 can store a large amount of raw data in its native format. For example, the database 40 can be utilized to store documents 10 and other potential training data in their respective native formats. Further, the database 40 can also be utilized to store other types of data. According to another embodiment, the database 40 can correspond to other memory storage devices, e.g., a data warehouse.)
9. Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Boston as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the data type is a Boolean data type, an integer data type, a decimal data type, a string data type date and time data type, an object data type, and/or a pointer data type.
However, Gunning teaches wherein the data type is a Boolean data type, an integer data type, a decimal data type, a string data type date and time data type, an object data type, and/or a pointer data type, (Abstract Section, In modern object-oriented programming, programs are written using typed objects like classes and instances that interact with one another via rules of composition, inheritance, encapsulation, message passing, and polymorphism. Some embodiments described herein can include a method for tokenizing such modern objects that maintains their interactive properties on a blockchain. It improves upon, and diverges from, the smart contract model used mainly on account-based blockchains today to create a generally-programmable token system that is native to UTXO-based blockchains, where individually-owned software objects interact with other software objects owned by other individuals. These tokenized objects are called jigs. Jigs, an abstraction like objects, enable applications to build their own digital assets that interact with other jigs from other applications. Jogs enable users to own their data as tokens and use their data independent of any one application's complete control.; and Column 1/line 59, In some embodiments, the class object comprises an object that defines characteristics for instances that are created for the class object. In some embodiments, the characteristics include one or more functions for the corresponding instance. In some embodiments, the characteristics include one or more properties for the corresponding instance. In some embodiments, the properties include initial properties. In some embodiments, the instance comprises an object that includes an occurrence of the class object, wherein characteristics of the instance is determined by the class object. In some embodiments, the class object incudes a class type characteristic, and instances from the class object share the same class type characteristic.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Gunning would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Boolean features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include wherein the data type is a Boolean data type, an integer data type, a decimal data type, a string data type date and time data type, an object data type, and/or a pointer data type result in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that objects can create and or interact with other blockchain based objects using the pre-defined templates, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
10. Regarding Claim 4, Boston as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the data type is a pointer data type, wherein the pointer data type points to a second pointer data type of a second property, wherein the second pointer data type points to a value.
However, Gunning teaches wherein the data type is a pointer data type, wherein the pointer data type points to a second pointer data type of a second property, wherein the second pointer data type points to a value, (Claim 7. The blockchain computing system of claim 1, wherein the second transaction comprises source code for the class object, properties for the class object, and information on other source code that the class object references to on the blockchain ledger.; and Column 35/line 20, In some embodiments, the computer system is further configured to determine an identifier for the recorded class object in order to identify the class object on the blockchain ledger. In some embodiments, the computer system is further configured to: receive instructions from a first user to retrieve the first instance of the class object, wherein the instructions to generate the instance of the class object is from a second user; retrieve the class object from the blockchain ledger without prior authorization from the second user; and process the class object to generate a second instance of the class object, wherein the second instance initially shares the same characteristic of the first instance created by the second user.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Gunning would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate blockchain features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include wherein the data type is a pointer data type, wherein the pointer data type points to a second pointer data type of a second property, wherein the second pointer data type points to a value result in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that the system can access object properties making is easier to navigate through the data structures, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
11. Regarding Claims 5, 13 and 17, Boston does not explicitly disclose wherein authorization of the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property is granted based on a role of the smart contract address, an attribute of the smart contract address, a policy of the smart contract address, authorization granted to the smart contract address by a property owner, and/or authorization granted to the smart contract address by a property creator.
However, Doney teaches wherein authorization of the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property is granted based on a role of the smart contract address, an attribute of the smart contract address, a policy of the smart contract address, authorization granted to the smart contract address by a property owner, and/or authorization granted to the smart contract address by a property creator, (Para. 0031-0032, Implementations include a novel combination of compliance workflows, attribute verification tools, a scalable key/lock model for enforcement, smart contracts and other ledger controls to provide a decentralized Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) framework to govern global financial tokenized transactions without the need for an active intermediary. Through ABAC, abstractions of smart contracts, and the sharing of recipes, implementations provide methods to govern on chain and off chain transactions. In a traditional ABAC model, users' access to objects, such as documents and data, in an enterprise is governed by a policy enforcement point (PEP). The user makes an electronic request for access to an object. The PEP consults with a policy decision service (PDS) which in turn gathers the appropriate policy and attribute data to provide a decision on access. If granted, the user is provided access to the object.; and Para. 0011, Another implementation is a non-transient computer readable medium storing instructions therein which, when executed by at least one computer processor, cause the at least one computer processor to: obtain data indicative of a verified identity of at least one participant on a transaction; receive participant attribute values for the at least one participant, the participant attributes being mapped to a wallet address indicating, among other things, a category of investor associated with at least one of the at least one participants and a jurisdiction applicable to the at least one participant; receive a request to engage in transaction of a token from a requesting participant that is one of the at least one participants, the token having token attribute values describing an underlying asset, the request including an indication of the token, and the participant attributes of the requesting participant; identify a policy to be enforced for the transaction and at least one rule associated with the policy, the at least one rule including a participant attribute, a comparison operator, and a desired value of the participant attribute and the at least one rule including a token attribute, a comparison operator, and a desired value of the token attribute; retrieve rights associated with the requested transaction based on the rule, the participant attribute value and the token attribute value, the rights specifying a verb/object pair; determine if the rights permit the requesting participant to engage in the transaction; allow the transaction when the rights permit the transaction; and record information indicating the right to perform a transaction on a distributed ledger)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston to the known invention of Doney would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate smart contract features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to wherein authorization of the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property is granted based on a role of the smart contract address, an attribute of the smart contract address, a policy of the smart contract address, authorization granted to the smart contract address by a property owner, and/or authorization granted to the smart contract address by a property creator result in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that users can control and access their data, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
12. Regarding Claim 6, Boston does not explicitly disclose wherein the source registry implements an oracle smart contract for creation and/or identification of at least one complex policy.
However, Doney teaches wherein the source registry implements an oracle smart contract for creation and/or identification of at least one complex policy, (Para. 0027, Restrictions defined by the issuer are common in contracts and practice. Examples include the ability to require explicit issuer permission for transfer, controls on the minimum or maximum size of holdings for participants, bounds on trading price, and more. Restrictions may depend on context such as market conditions, number of participants, participant role within the company, proximity to corporate announcements or actions, etc. The complexity of these rules requires a flexible yet extensive rights management model.; and Para. 0029, The implementations described herein include a rules engine that maps complex securities laws and transaction controls into verifiable rulesets that can be evaluated in a centralized or decentralized fashion. These rulesets can be saved as “recipes”, reusable data structures of a compliance or other governance decision-making, that can be easily shared, edited graphically, and stored on non-transient media in an open standard format such as eXtensible Access Control Markup Language or other computer interpretable code.; and Para. 0039, In step 5, attribute sources 16 are consulted to gather relevant data on transaction participants, objects, and environment. Rules engine 12 provides attributes which contain descriptions where and how to obtain data needed for policy decisions in accordance with relevant recipe. For example, if a rule limits the number of token holders, the attribute in the rule contains a map with instructions on how to obtain the current number of token holders so that the rule can be evaluated. The instructions can include a network address where the data is stored, an API to access the data, and authorization information to access the data. To ensure flexibility, rules engine 12 provides an interoperability framework and interfaces to enable consultation with external, independent data sources sometimes referred to as “oracles”. Through this framework, data sources for rules assessment can be mapped to the policy. In step 6, policy decisions are returned from rules engine 12 to the PEP for enforcement. Rights to perform certain transactions are often cached at PEP 10 to facilitate efficient enforcement of recurring transactions. At step 7, the right, which can include a verb/object pair, to perform the desired action on the object is granted, based on the appropriate recipe(s) and identities, and attributes, and the requested transaction is executed.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston to the known invention of Doney would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate smart contract features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to wherein include the source registry implements an oracle smart contract for creation and/or identification of at least one complex policy result in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that users can control and access their data, thus improving the overall performance of the invention..
13. Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Boston does not explicitly disclose wherein a property is created using a class registry, wherein the class registry stores a class template, the class template mapping at least one behavior including an event, an interface, and/or a function, wherein a class template is selected from the class registry to enable the property to inherit the at least one behavior mapped by the class template.
However, Gunning teaches wherein a property is created using a class registry, wherein the class registry stores a class template, the class template mapping at least one behavior including an event, an interface, and/or a function, wherein a class template is selected from the class registry to enable the property to inherit the at least one behavior mapped by the class template, (Claim 1. receive a request to generate a class object; generate the class object; record a first transaction onto a blockchain ledger, wherein the first transaction includes computer-executable instructions to recreate the class object, wherein a blockchain associated with the blockchain ledger is Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO)-based; receive instructions to generate an instance of the class object; retrieve the first transaction from a database associated with the blockchain ledger; process the first transaction to generate a first instance of the class object, wherein the first instance comprises an occurrence of the class object, wherein characteristics of the first instance is determined by at least the class object; and record a second transaction onto the blockchain ledger, wherein the second transaction includes computer-executable instructions to recreate the first instance of the class object, wherein the second transaction has at least one input or a reference to the at least one output of the first transaction.; and Column 1/line 59, the class object comprises an object that defines characteristics for instances that are created for the class object…the characteristics include one or more functions for the corresponding instance… the characteristics include one or more properties for the corresponding instance.; and Column 2/line 15, the information needed to reproduce the class comprises source code for the class, properties for the class, and information on other source code that the class references to on the blockchain ledger.; and Column 1/line 48, receive instructions to generate a class object; generate a class object; record the class object or instructions to recreate the class object onto a blockchain ledger; receive instructions to generate an instance of the class object; retrieve the class object from the blockchain ledger; process the class object to generate a first instance of the class object; and record the first instance of the class object or instructions to recreate the first instance of the class object onto the blockchain ledger…the instance comprises an object that includes an occurrence of the class object, wherein characteristics of the instance is determined by the class object.; and Column 2/line 12, recording the class object onto the transaction output based blockchain ledger comprises recording information needed to reproduce the class. In some embodiments, the information needed to reproduce the class comprises source code for the class, properties for the class, and information on other source code that the class references to on the blockchain ledger; and Column 2/line 67, receive instructions to add a characteristic to the class object, wherein the characteristic includes a function to generate, from an instance of the class object, an instance of another class object; generate the function; record the function or instructions to recreate the function onto a blockchain ledger; receive instructions to perform the function onto the first instance of the class object; generate an instance of the other class object; and record the instance of the other class object or instructions to recreate the instance of the other class object onto the blockchain ledger….receive instructions to perform a function on the first instance of the class object; process the function on the first instance to generate an updated state for the first instance; and record the updated state of the first instance or instructions to recreate the updated state of the first instance onto a blockchain ledger.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Gunning would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate table structures features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include wherein a property is created using a class registry, wherein the class registry stores a class template, the class template mapping at least one behavior including an event, an interface, and/or a function, wherein a class template is selected from the class registry to enable the property to inherit the at least one behavior mapped by the class template result in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that objects can create and or interact with other blockchain based objects using the pre-defined templates, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
14. Regarding Claim 8, Boston does not explicitly disclose further comprising adding at least one additional behavior, including at least one additional event, at least one additional interface, and/or at least one additional function to the class template to produce a new class template, wherein the property displays the at least one behavior and the at least one additional behavior, wherein adding the at least one additional behavior to the class template does not generate new code in the new class template.
However, Gunning teaches further comprising adding at least one additional behavior, including at least one additional event, at least one additional interface, and/or at least one additional function to the class template to produce a new class template, wherein the property displays the at least one behavior and the at least one additional behavior, wherein adding the at least one additional behavior to the class template does not generate new code in the new class template,(Claim 1. receive a request to generate a class object; generate the class object; record a first transaction onto a blockchain ledger, wherein the first transaction includes computer-executable instructions to recreate the class object, wherein a blockchain associated with the blockchain ledger is Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO)-based; receive instructions to generate an instance of the class object; retrieve the first transaction from a database associated with the blockchain ledger; process the first transaction to generate a first instance of the class object, wherein the first instance comprises an occurrence of the class object, wherein characteristics of the first instance is determined by at least the class object; and record a second transaction onto the blockchain ledger, wherein the second transaction includes computer-executable instructions to recreate the first instance of the class object, wherein the second transaction has at least one input or a reference to the at least one output of the first transaction.; and Column 1/line 59, the class object comprises an object that defines characteristics for instances that are created for the class object…the characteristics include one or more functions for the corresponding instance… the characteristics include one or more properties for the corresponding instance…In some embodiments, the computer system is further configured to: receive instructions from a first user to retrieve the first instance of the class object, wherein the instructions to generate the instance of the class object is from a second user; retrieve the class object from the blockchain ledger without prior authorization from the second user; and process the class object to generate a second instance of the class object, wherein the second instance initially shares the same characteristic of the first instance created by the second user.In some embodiments, the instructions to generate the class object is from a first user, wherein the class object is only modifiable by the first user, wherein other users can reference the class object. In some embodiments, the computer system is further configured to: receive instructions to generate a first class object extension of the class object; generate the first class object extension, wherein the first class object extension comprises characteristics of the class object and first characteristics separate from the characteristics of the class object; and record the first class object extension or instructions to recreate the first class object extension onto the blockchain ledger. )
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Gunning would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate table structures features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include further comprising adding at least one additional behavior, including at least one additional event, at least one additional interface, and/or at least one additional function to the class template to produce a new class template, wherein the property displays the at least one behavior and the at least one additional behavior, wherein adding the at least one additional behavior to the class template does not generate new code in the new class template result in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that objects can create and or interact with other blockchain based objects using the pre-defined templates, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
15. Regarding Claims 9 and 20, Boston does not explicitly disclose, further comprising at least one developer updating the code of the smart contract for accessing the property stored in the property registry, the smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address, and/or the smart contract for verifying authorization.
However, Gunning teaches further comprising at least one developer updating the code of the smart contract for accessing the property stored in the property registry, the smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address, and/or the smart contract for verifying authorization, (Column 2/line 22, In some embodiments, the computer system is further configured to: receive instructions from a first user to retrieve the first instance of the class object, wherein the instructions to generate the instance of the class object is from a second user; retrieve the class object from the blockchain ledger without prior authorization from the second user; and process the class object to generate a second instance of the class object, wherein the second instance initially shares the same characteristic of the first instance created by the second user. In some embodiments, the instructions to generate the class object is from a first user, wherein the class object is only modifiable by the first user, wherein other users can reference the class object. In some embodiments, the computer system is further configured to: receive instructions to generate a first class object extension of the class object; generate the first class object extension, wherein the first class object extension comprises characteristics of the class object and first characteristics separate from the characteristics of the class object; and record the first class object extension or instructions to recreate the first class object extension onto the blockchain ledger…In some embodiments, the computer system is further configured to: receive instructions to update the class object; update the class object based on the update instructions; record the updated class object or instructions to recreate the updated class object onto the blockchain ledger; and provide information of the updated class object to instances of the class object in order to provide an opportunity to update the corresponding instances. )
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Gunning would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate table structures features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include further comprising at least one developer updating the code of the smart contract for accessing the property stored in the property registry, the smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address, and/or the smart contract for verifying authorization result in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensures that users can control and access their data, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
16. Regarding Claim 10, Boston discloses, a system for management of data on a decentralized network ,comprising: a decentralized computer platform including a processor and a memory; wherein the decentralized computer platform accesses a distributed ledger, (Para. 0010),
comprising: creating a property registry on a decentralized computer platform including a processor and a memory, wherein the computer platform is implemented on a distributed ledger, (Para. 0008, The system may include: (i) a blockchain comprising a plurality of nodes operating on computer servers, wherein the nodes are connected via a network; (ii) an electronic database for storing the plurality of electronic documents; and (iii) at least one computer processor, wherein the at least one computer processor is programmed with software to: (a) with a document analysis module, receive at least one electronic document, generate a corresponding smart contract and metadata, and transmit the smart contract and the metadata to the blockchain for storage in a block on the blockchain, wherein the metadata specifies a curation status for the at least one electronic document, and the smart contract controls document access to the at least one electronic document; (b) with a curation module, using the smart contract and the metadata, determine a set of electronic documents that qualify to be reviewed by a curator, retrieve the at least one electronic document from the electronic database and present the at least one electronic document to the curator, receive from the curator an indication of whether the at least one electronic document constitutes training data, and save the indication as metadata in the block on the blockchain; and (c) with a modeling module, retrieve a plurality of electronic documents from the electronic database that have been designated as training data, and train the computer model using the designated documents as training data.)
wherein the decentralized computer platform includes an attestation registry comprising a property registry, a source registry, a value registry, an option registry, and a unit conversion registry; wherein the property registry defines at least one property including a name, data, a data type, and a source, wherein the at least one property is stored in the property registry, Para. 0030, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about the reviewed document 10. For example, the metadata 11 can indicate (i) the ownership of the reviewed document 10, (ii) the location of the reviewed document 10, (iii) whether the reviewed document 10 needs to be retained or purged, and (iv) information about the particular keys required to access the reviewed document. The smart contract 12 can include computer protocols that execute when predefined conditions occur. For example, the smart contract 12 can execute specific protocols when the knowledge worker begins to curate a plurality of reviewed documents; and Para. 0035, FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of metadata created by the document analysis module 20 of data exchange system in FIG. 1. As depicted in the figure, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about a particular document 10, e.g., (i) the current name, (ii) the original name, (iii) provenance information, (iv) ownership information, (v) location information, (vi) whether the knowledge worker curator approved the document for use as training data, (vii) whether a data scientist curator approved the document for use as training data, (viii) whether the document is associated with a retention or purge policy, and (ix) the keys to access, open, and read the document, respectively. According to an embodiment, knowledge worker curators review the improvement data to determine whether the data provides a good example of the concept (for example, is “560 Lexington Avenue” a good example of the concept “Property Address” for an appraisal). The data science curator would instead be considering whether this same example is an appropriate example given the overall model itself (e.g., does this example demonstrate a possible flaw in the typology of the system, or demonstrate the need for a new modeling technique). The keys are used to provide permissions to users (both human and machine) to access the database 40. Once a user is allowed to have access, they can be given a key that is used in an access request to the database. The database only allows users with specific permissions (through those keys) to access the appropriate information)
wherein the value registry includes at least one value associated with the property, wherein the at least one value is accessed by an authorized party using at least one key associated with an object identifier and/or the property, (Para. 0035, FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of metadata created by the document analysis module 20 of data exchange system in FIG. 1. As depicted in the figure, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about a particular document 10, e.g., (i) the current name, (ii) the original name, (iii) provenance information, (iv) ownership information, (v) location information, (vi) whether the knowledge worker curator approved the document for use as training data, (vii) whether a data scientist curator approved the document for use as training data, (viii) whether the document is associated with a retention or purge policy, and (ix) the keys to access, open, and read the document, respectively. According to an embodiment, knowledge worker curators review the improvement data to determine whether the data provides a good example of the concept (for example, is “560 Lexington Avenue” a good example of the concept “Property Address” for an appraisal). The data science curator would instead be considering whether this same example is an appropriate example given the overall model itself (e.g., does this example demonstrate a possible flaw in the typology of the system, or demonstrate the need for a new modeling technique). The keys are used to provide permissions to users (both human and machine) to access the database 40. Once a user is allowed to have access, they can be given a key that is used in an access request to the database. The database only allows users with specific permissions (through those keys) to access the appropriate information.)
Boston does not explicitly disclose wherein the source registry governs access to the property stored in the property registry by deploying a smart contract based on at least one control model for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model.
However, Doney teaches wherein the source registry governs access to the property stored in the property registry by deploying a smart contract based on at least one control model for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model, (Abstract Section, An apparatus, computer-readable medium, and computer-implemented method to facilitate scalable compliance and issuer governance of decentralized financial transactions especially for the trade and transfer of tokenized securities. The resulting Compliance Aware Tokens contain the rulesets to restrict transactions and facilitate regulatory reporting and oversight. The embodied process, includes of a novel combination of compliance workflows, attribute verification tools, smart contracts and other ledger controls, provides a decentralized Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) capability. ABAC patterns are extended to govern global financial transactions without the need for an active intermediary.; and Para. 0031-0032, Implementations include a novel combination of compliance workflows, attribute verification tools, a scalable key/lock model for enforcement, smart contracts and other ledger controls to provide a decentralized Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) framework to govern global financial tokenized transactions without the need for an active intermediary. Through ABAC, abstractions of smart contracts, and the sharing of recipes, implementations provide methods to govern on chain and off chain transactions. In a traditional ABAC model, users' access to objects, such as documents and data, in an enterprise is governed by a policy enforcement point (PEP). The user makes an electronic request for access to an object. The PEP consults with a policy decision service (PDS) which in turn gathers the appropriate policy and attribute data to provide a decision on access. If granted, the user is provided access to the object.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Doney would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate (RBAC) model features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include wherein the source registry governs access to the property stored in the property registry by deploying a smart contract based on at least one control model for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model result in an improved invention because applying said technique will provide an additional layer of security to the data management process by preventing unauthorized access, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Boston as modified does not explicitly wherein the decentralized computer platform includes an attestation registry comprising a property registry, a source registry, a value registry, an option registry, and a unit conversion registry.
However, Gunning teaches wherein the decentralized computer platform includes an attestation registry comprising a property registry, a source registry, a value registry, an option registry, and a unit conversion registry, (Column 1/line 48, Some embodiments can include a blockchain computing system, comprising: a computer system having a processor and a memory, the computer system configured to: receive instructions to generate a class object; generate a class object; record the class object or instructions to recreate the class object onto a blockchain ledger; receive instructions to generate an instance of the class object; retrieve the class object from the blockchain ledger; process the class object to generate a first instance of the class object; and record the first instance of the class object or instructions to recreate the first instance of the class object onto the blockchain ledger.; and Column 1/line 59, In some embodiments, the class object comprises an object that defines characteristics for instances that are created for the class object. In some embodiments, the characteristics include one or more functions for the corresponding instance. In some embodiments, the characteristics include one or more properties for the corresponding instance. In some embodiments, the properties include initial properties.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Gunning would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate table structures features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include wherein the decentralized computer platform includes an attestation registry comprising a property registry, a source registry, a value registry, an option registry, and a unit conversion registry result in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that objects can create and or interact with other blockchain based objects using the pre-defined templates, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
17. Regarding Claim 14, Boston does not explicitly disclose further comprising an oracle, wherein the oracle accesses a third party platform to determine a rate of conversion for converting the data from the first unit format into the second unit format.
However, Doney teaches further comprising an oracle, wherein the oracle accesses a third party platform to determine a rate of conversion for converting the data from the first unit format into the second unit format, (Para. 0016, FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an implementation of the flow of data from attribute sources to the rules engine to facilitate policy decisions; and Para. 0032-0033, In a traditional ABAC model, users' access to objects, such as documents and data, in an enterprise is governed by a policy enforcement point (PEP). The user makes an electronic request for access to an object. The PEP consults with a policy decision service (PDS) which in turn gathers the appropriate policy and attribute data to provide a decision on access. If granted, the user is provided access to the object. FIG. 1 illustrates compliance enhanced architecture 100 that leverages ABAC components and which includes: policy enforcement point (PEP) 10, used to govern transactions of value assets between users, sometimes referred to as “participants”, in an enterprise or other domain; rules engine 12 (which includes a policy decision service (PDS)) used to gather the applicable policy and data required to make a decision on access rights; recipe storage 14 (including a policy store) that define the rules required to perform enterprise actions; and attribute sources 16 that provide contextual data related to the users (i.e. the transaction participants), affected tokens (as digital objects), and environment to support a policy decision.; and Para. 0042, process to codify compliance rules associated with any financial transaction through a Subject Verb Object (SVO) structure where the actor or actors attempting an action are the subject, the action being attempted is the verb, and the item on which the action is to be performed is the object. For example, a user (subject) is attempting to transfer (verb) a specific token (object). Extending ABAC approaches in this way, i.e., by converting access decisions to rights decisions permits a more flexible framework for governing complex transactions on financial networks. FIG. 4 shows user interface 400 for creating and editing recipes. User selection controls are provided for selecting attributes, values and logic for rules in a recipe.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Doney would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate conversion features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include further comprising an oracle, wherein the oracle accesses a third party platform to determine a rate of conversion for converting the data from the first unit format into the second unit format result in an improved invention because applying said technique will allow for more accurate data with the system able to make conversions, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
18. Regarding Claim 15, Boston does not explicitly disclose wherein the unit conversion registry receives an input of a plug-in conversion logic, wherein the data is in a first unit format, wherein the second unit format is the desired format of the data, wherein the plug-in conversion logic automatically converts the data from the first unit format into a second unit format.
However, Doney teaches wherein the unit conversion registry receives an input of a plug-in conversion logic, wherein the data is in a first unit format, wherein the second unit format is the desired format of the data, wherein the plug-in conversion logic automatically converts the data from the first unit format into a second unit format, (Para. 0028, The implementations described herein include a rules engine that maps complex securities laws and transaction controls into verifiable rulesets that can be evaluated in a centralized or decentralized fashion. These rulesets can be saved as "recipes", reusable data structures of a compliance or other governance decision-making, that can be easily shared, edited graphically, and stored on non-transient media in an open standard format such as extensible Access Control Markup Language or other computer interpretable code.; and Para. 0040, As illustrated in FIG. 3, implementations use a key/lock structure that isolates issuer judgment via the mapping of wallet attributes to repeatable and verifiable rule sets associated with the underlying value in a transaction (Lock). Verified attributes of the owner of wallet A, or wallet B, and environment variables such as the size of a transaction or the number of current participants are composed into a Key which are evaluated against the rulesets defined for the token or other object (Lock) to determine if participants in a transaction have the right to conduct the transaction. These rights are evaluated in real time in a decentralized fashion using a smart contract or other ledger controls to permit or block the transaction; and Para. 0041, The implementations provide a flexible, repeatable, and scalable process to codify compliance rules associated with any financial transaction through a Subject Verb Object (SVO) structure where the actor or actors attempting an action are the subject, the action being attempted is the verb, and the item on which the action is to be performed is the object. For example, a user (subject) is attempting to transfer (verb) a specific token (object). Extending ABAC approaches in this way, i.e., by converting access decisions to rights decisions permits a more flexible framework for governing complex transactions on financial networks. FIG. 4 shows user interface 400 for creating and editing recipes. User selection controls are provided for selecting attributes, values and logic for rules in a recipe.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Doney would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate conversion features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include wherein the unit conversion registry receives an input of a plug-in conversion logic, wherein the data is in a first unit format, wherein the second unit format is the desired format of the data, wherein the plug-in conversion logic automatically converts the data from the first unit format into a second unit format result in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that data is more accurate with using smart contracts for conversions to prevent error, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
Regarding Claim 16, Boston discloses a method of managing trusted data on a decentralized network, comprising:
creating a property registry on a decentralized computer platform including a processor and a memory, wherein the computer platform is implemented on a distributed ledger, (Para. 0008, The system may include: (i) a blockchain comprising a plurality of nodes operating on computer servers, wherein the nodes are connected via a network; (ii) an electronic database for storing the plurality of electronic documents; and (iii) at least one computer processor, wherein the at least one computer processor is programmed with software to: (a) with a document analysis module, receive at least one electronic document, generate a corresponding smart contract and metadata, and transmit the smart contract and the metadata to the blockchain for storage in a block on the blockchain, wherein the metadata specifies a curation status for the at least one electronic document, and the smart contract controls document access to the at least one electronic document; (b) with a curation module, using the smart contract and the metadata, determine a set of electronic documents that qualify to be reviewed by a curator, retrieve the at least one electronic document from the electronic database and present the at least one electronic document to the curator, receive from the curator an indication of whether the at least one electronic document constitutes training data, and save the indication as metadata in the block on the blockchain; and (c) with a modeling module, retrieve a plurality of electronic documents from the electronic database that have been designated as training data, and train the computer model using the designated documents as training data.)
the property registry storing at least one data definition, wherein a property including a name, data, a data type, and a source is defined by the at least one data definition, wherein the property is stored in the property registry, (Para. 0030, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about the reviewed document 10. For example, the metadata 11 can indicate (i) the ownership of the reviewed document 10, (ii) the location of the reviewed document 10, (iii) whether the reviewed document 10 needs to be retained or purged, and (iv) information about the particular keys required to access the reviewed document. The smart contract 12 can include computer protocols that execute when predefined conditions occur. For example, the smart contract 12 can execute specific protocols when the knowledge worker begins to curate a plurality of reviewed documents; and Para. 0035, FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of metadata created by the document analysis module 20 of data exchange system in FIG. 1. As depicted in the figure, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about a particular document 10, e.g., (i) the current name, (ii) the original name, (iii) provenance information, (iv) ownership information, (v) location information, (vi) whether the knowledge worker curator approved the document for use as training data, (vii) whether a data scientist curator approved the document for use as training data, (viii) whether the document is associated with a retention or purge policy, and (ix) the keys to access, open, and read the document, respectively. According to an embodiment, knowledge worker curators review the improvement data to determine whether the data provides a good example of the concept (for example, is “560 Lexington Avenue” a good example of the concept “Property Address” for an appraisal). The data science curator would instead be considering whether this same example is an appropriate example given the overall model itself (e.g., does this example demonstrate a possible flaw in the typology of the system, or demonstrate the need for a new modeling technique). The keys are used to provide permissions to users (both human and machine) to access the database 40. Once a user is allowed to have access, they can be given a key that is used in an access request to the database. The database only allows users with specific permissions (through those keys) to access the appropriate information.)
the source registry executing a smart contract for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property, (Para. 0035, FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of metadata created by the document analysis module 20 of data exchange system in FIG. 1. As depicted in the figure, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about a particular document 10, e.g., (i) the current name, (ii) the original name, (iii) provenance information, (iv) ownership information, (v) location information, (vi) whether the knowledge worker curator approved the document for use as training data, (vii) whether a data scientist curator approved the document for use as training data, (viii) whether the document is associated with a retention or purge policy, and (ix) the keys to access, open, and read the document, respectively. According to an embodiment, knowledge worker curators review the improvement data to determine whether the data provides a good example of the concept (for example, is “560 Lexington Avenue” a good example of the concept “Property Address” for an appraisal). The data science curator would instead be considering whether this same example is an appropriate example given the overall model itself (e.g., does this example demonstrate a possible flaw in the typology of the system, or demonstrate the need for a new modeling technique). The keys are used to provide permissions to users (both human and machine) to access the database 40. Once a user is allowed to have access, they can be given a key that is used in an access request to the database. The database only allows users with specific permissions (through those keys) to access the appropriate information.)
assigning at least two values to the property and storing the at least two values in a memory of a value registry the value registry mapping at least one class to the property, (Para. 0008, The system may include: (i) a blockchain comprising a plurality of nodes operating on computer servers, wherein the nodes are connected via a network; (ii) an electronic database for storing the plurality of electronic documents; and (iii) at least one computer processor, wherein the at least one computer processor is programmed with software to: (a) with a document analysis module, receive at least one electronic document, generate a corresponding smart contract and metadata, and transmit the smart contract and the metadata to the blockchain for storage in a block on the blockchain, wherein the metadata specifies a curation status for the at least one electronic document, and the smart contract controls document access to the at least one electronic document; (b) with a curation module, using the smart contract and the metadata, determine a set of electronic documents that qualify to be reviewed by a curator, retrieve the at least one electronic document from the electronic database and present the at least one electronic document to the curator, receive from the curator an indication of whether the at least one electronic document constitutes training data, and save the indication as metadata in the block on the blockchain; and (c) with a modeling module, retrieve a plurality of electronic documents from the electronic database that have been designated as training data, and train the computer model using the designated documents as training data.; and Para. 0032, the document analysis module 20 can also provide the annotated and reviewed document 10 to the database 40. According to an embodiment, the database 40 can store a large amount of raw data in its native format. For example, the database 40 can be utilized to store documents 10 and other potential training data in their respective native formats.)
the property registry using a primary key of the property registry to indicate the location of the name, the data type, and the source within the property registry, a source registry executing a smart contract to access the property stored in the property registry, wherein the source registry uses a foreign key of the source registry to access the property, wherein the foreign key of the source registry indicates the location of the name, the data type, and the source within the property registry (Para. 0010, receiving, with a document analysis module comprising software running on at least one computer processor, at least one electronic document; generating, with the document analysis module, a corresponding smart contract and metadata corresponding to the electronic document, wherein the metadata specifies a curation status for the at least one electronic document, and the smart contract controls document access to the at least one electronic document; transmitting, with the document analysis module, the smart contract and the metadata to a blockchain for storage in a block on the blockchain, wherein the blockchain comprises a plurality of nodes operating on computer servers, wherein the nodes are connected via a network; storing, with an electronic database, the at least electronic document; determining, with a curation module comprising software running on the at least one computer processor, a set of electronic documents that qualify to be reviewed by a curator based on the smart contract and the metadata; retrieving, with the curation module, the at least one electronic document from the database and presenting the at least one electronic document to the curator; receiving, with the curation module, a designation from the curator of whether the at least one electronic document qualifies as training data; storing, with the curation module, the designation as metadata in a block on the blockchain; retrieving, with a modeling module comprising software running on the at least one computer processor, a plurality of electronic documents from the database that have been designated as training data; and training, with the modeling module, the computer model using the documents designated as training data.; and Para. 0035, FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of metadata created by the document analysis module 20 of data exchange system in FIG. 1. As depicted in the figure, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about a particular document 10, e.g., (i) the current name, (ii) the original name, (iii) provenance information, (iv) ownership information, (v) location information, (vi) whether the knowledge worker curator approved the document for use as training data, (vii) whether a data scientist curator approved the document for use as training data, (viii) whether the document is associated with a retention or purge policy, and (ix) the keys to access, open, and read the document, respectively. According to an embodiment, knowledge worker curators review the improvement data to determine whether the data provides a good example of the concept (for example, is “560 Lexington Avenue” a good example of the concept “Property Address” for an appraisal). The data science curator would instead be considering whether this same example is an appropriate example given the overall model itself (e.g., does this example demonstrate a possible flaw in the typology of the system, or demonstrate the need for a new modeling technique). The keys are used to provide permissions to users (both human and machine) to access the database 40. Once a user is allowed to have access, they can be given a key that is used in an access request to the database. The database only allows users with specific permissions (through those keys) to access the appropriate information.)
accessing the at least two values using at least two keys associated with an object identifier or the property, Para. 0008, The system may include: (i) a blockchain comprising a plurality of nodes operating on computer servers, wherein the nodes are connected via a network; (ii) an electronic database for storing the plurality of electronic documents; and (iii) at least one computer processor, wherein the at least one computer processor is programmed with software to: (a) with a document analysis module, receive at least one electronic document, generate a corresponding smart contract and metadata, and transmit the smart contract and the metadata to the blockchain for storage in a block on the blockchain, wherein the metadata specifies a curation status for the at least one electronic document, and the smart contract controls document access to the at least one electronic document; (b) with a curation module, using the smart contract and the metadata, determine a set of electronic documents that qualify to be reviewed by a curator, retrieve the at least one electronic document from the electronic database and present the at least one electronic document to the curator, receive from the curator an indication of whether the at least one electronic document constitutes training data, and save the indication as metadata in the block on the blockchain; and (c) with a modeling module, retrieve a plurality of electronic documents from the electronic database that have been designated as training data, and train the computer model using the designated documents as training data.; Para. 0030, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about the reviewed document 10. For example, the metadata 11 can indicate (i) the ownership of the reviewed document 10, (ii) the location of the reviewed document 10, (iii) whether the reviewed document 10 needs to be retained or purged, and (iv) information about the particular keys required to access the reviewed document. The smart contract 12 can include computer protocols that execute when predefined conditions occur. For example, the smart contract 12 can execute specific protocols when the knowledge worker begins to curate a plurality of reviewed documents; and Para. 0035, FIG. 3 depicts an example embodiment of metadata created by the document analysis module 20 of data exchange system in FIG. 1. As depicted in the figure, the metadata 11 can include a variety of information about a particular document 10, e.g., (i) the current name, (ii) the original name, (iii) provenance information, (iv) ownership information, (v) location information, (vi) whether the knowledge worker curator approved the document for use as training data, (vii) whether a data scientist curator approved the document for use as training data, (viii) whether the document is associated with a retention or purge policy, and (ix) the keys to access, open, and read the document, respectively. According to an embodiment, knowledge worker curators review the improvement data to determine whether the data provides a good example of the concept (for example, is “560 Lexington Avenue” a good example of the concept “Property Address” for an appraisal). The data science curator would instead be considering whether this same example is an appropriate example given the overall model itself (e.g., does this example demonstrate a possible flaw in the typology of the system, or demonstrate the need for a new modeling technique). The keys are used to provide permissions to users (both human and machine) to access the database 40. Once a user is allowed to have access, they can be given a key that is used in an access request to the database. The database only allows users with specific permissions (through those keys) to access the appropriate information)
Boston does not explicitly disclose adding the property to the source registry, the source registry deploying a smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address based on at least one control model to enable the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model.
However, Doney teaches adding the property to the source registry, the source registry deploying a smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address based on at least one control model to enable the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model, (Abstract Section, An apparatus, computer-readable medium, and computer-implemented method to facilitate scalable compliance and issuer governance of decentralized financial transactions especially for the trade and transfer of tokenized securities. The resulting Compliance Aware Tokens contain the rulesets to restrict transactions and facilitate regulatory reporting and oversight. The embodied process, includes of a novel combination of compliance workflows, attribute verification tools, smart contracts and other ledger controls, provides a decentralized Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) capability. ABAC patterns are extended to govern global financial transactions without the need for an active intermediary.; and Para. 0031-0032, Implementations include a novel combination of compliance workflows, attribute verification tools, a scalable key/lock model for enforcement, smart contracts and other ledger controls to provide a decentralized Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) framework to govern global financial tokenized transactions without the need for an active intermediary. Through ABAC, abstractions of smart contracts, and the sharing of recipes, implementations provide methods to govern on chain and off chain transactions. In a traditional ABAC model, users' access to objects, such as documents and data, in an enterprise is governed by a policy enforcement point (PEP). The user makes an electronic request for access to an object. The PEP consults with a policy decision service (PDS) which in turn gathers the appropriate policy and attribute data to provide a decision on access. If granted, the user is provided access to the object.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Doney would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate (RBAC) model features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include adding the property to the source registry, the source registry deploying a smart contract assigning authorization to a smart contract address based on at least one control model to enable the smart contract address to access, edit, and/or delete the property, wherein the at least one control model includes a roles-based access control (RBAC) model; the source registry executing a smart contract for verifying authorization to access, edit, and/or delete the property result in an improved invention because applying said technique will provide an additional layer of security to the data management process by preventing unauthorized access, thus improving the overall security of the invention.
Boston as modified does not explicitly and an options list registry executing a smart contract for enumerating at least one combination of the at least two values stored in the value registry, wherein the enumeration is stored in the options list registry.
However, Gunning teaches and an options list registry executing a smart contract for enumerating at least one combination of the at least two values stored in the value registry, wherein the enumeration is stored in the options list registry, (Column 1/line 48, Some embodiments can include a blockchain computing system, comprising: a computer system having a processor and a memory, the computer system configured to: receive instructions to generate a class object; generate a class object; record the class object or instructions to recreate the class object onto a blockchain ledger; receive instructions to generate an instance of the class object; retrieve the class object from the blockchain ledger; process the class object to generate a first instance of the class object; and record the first instance of the class object or instructions to recreate the first instance of the class object onto the blockchain ledger.; and Column 1/line 59, In some embodiments, the class object comprises an object that defines characteristics for instances that are created for the class object. In some embodiments, the characteristics include one or more functions for the corresponding instance. In some embodiments, the characteristics include one or more properties for the corresponding instance. In some embodiments, the properties include initial properties.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston as modified to the known invention of Gunning would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate table structures features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include and an options list registry executing a smart contract for enumerating at least one combination of the at least two values stored in the value registry, wherein the enumeration is stored in the options list registry result in an improved invention because applying said technique will ensure that objects can create and or interact with other blockchain based objects using the pre-defined templates, thus improving the overall efficiency of the invention.
20. Regarding Claim 18, Boston does not explicitly disclose wherein the source registry implements an oracle smart contract for creation and/or identification of at least one complex policy, wherein a policy engine executes a policy engine smart contract to determine compliance of a proposed access, a proposed edit, and/or a proposed deletion of the property with the at least one complex policy.
However, Doney teaches wherein the source registry implements an oracle smart contract for creation and/or identification of at least one complex policy, wherein a policy engine executes a policy engine smart contract to determine compliance of a proposed access, a proposed edit, and/or a proposed deletion of the property with the at least one complex policy,
(Para. 0027, Restrictions defined by the issuer are common in contracts and practice. Examples include the ability to require explicit issuer permission for transfer, controls on the minimum or maximum size of holdings for participants, bounds on trading price, and more. Restrictions may depend on context such as market conditions, number of participants, participant role within the company, proximity to corporate announcements or actions, etc. The complexity of these rules requires a flexible yet extensive rights management model.; and Para. 0029, The implementations described herein include a rules engine that maps complex securities laws and transaction controls into verifiable rulesets that can be evaluated in a centralized or decentralized fashion. These rulesets can be saved as “recipes”, reusable data structures of a compliance or other governance decision-making, that can be easily shared, edited graphically, and stored on non-transient media in an open standard format such as eXtensible Access Control Markup Language or other computer interpretable code.; and Para. 0039, In step 5, attribute sources 16 are consulted to gather relevant data on transaction participants, objects, and environment. Rules engine 12 provides attributes which contain descriptions where and how to obtain data needed for policy decisions in accordance with relevant recipe. For example, if a rule limits the number of token holders, the attribute in the rule contains a map with instructions on how to obtain the current number of token holders so that the rule can be evaluated. The instructions can include a network address where the data is stored, an API to access the data, and authorization information to access the data. To ensure flexibility, rules engine 12 provides an interoperability framework and interfaces to enable consultation with external, independent data sources sometimes referred to as “oracles”. Through this framework, data sources for rules assessment can be mapped to the policy. In step 6, policy decisions are returned from rules engine 12 to the PEP for enforcement. Rights to perform certain transactions are often cached at PEP 10 to facilitate efficient enforcement of recurring transactions. At step 7, the right, which can include a verb/object pair, to perform the desired action on the object is granted, based on the appropriate recipe(s) and identities, and attributes, and the requested transaction is executed.)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Boston to the known invention of Doney would have been recognized that the application of the technique would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate smart contract features into a similar invention. Further, it would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the method to include wherein the source registry implements an oracle smart contract for creation and/or identification of at least one complex policy, wherein a policy engine executes a policy engine smart contract to determine compliance of a proposed access, a proposed edit, and/or a proposed deletion of the property with the at least one complex policy result in an improved invention because applying said technique ensures that users can control and access their data, thus improving the overall performance of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Systems, Methods, And Devices For Implementing A Smart Contract On A Distributed Ledger Technology Platform (US 10476847 B1) teaches systems, methods, and devices disclosed herein are directed to implementations of one or more smart contracts deployed on a distributed ledger technology (DLT) platform. In some embodiments, implementation of one or more specific smart contracts and/or private data sharing technologies on a DLT platform can provide frameworks and/or solutions to generate a smart UCC platform that facilitates submission and tracking of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings on a distributed ledger or blockchain platform. In some embodiments, implementation of one or more specific smart contracts and/or private data sharing technologies on a DLT platform can provide frameworks and/or solutions to generate a smart company platform for controlling, managing, and/or communicating company documents and/or communications on a distributed ledger or blockchain platform.
In addition to the foregoing, other aspects are described in the claims, drawings, and text. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Davida L. King whose telephone number is (571) 272-4724. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/D.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3699
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights