DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on September 16, 2025 for application 18477719
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments and arguments, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the details in amended claim 1 go beyond the abstract idea of "Certain methods of organizing human activity" since amended Claim 1 recites "hash[ing] a unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction by utilizing a hashing algorithm..." and the operation of hash[ing] is inherently computer-specific and cannot practically be considered as "certain methods of organizing human activity". Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but rather involve the use of blockchain technology in a manner that is not a mere field-of-use limitation or insignificant extra-solution activity and are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem in distributed ledger technology, namely, providing a mechanism for holding, canceling, or confirming transactions before they are permanently recorded on a blockchain. Applicant further argues that the specific method of the claims recite a specific, technical solution to a technical problem in blockchain technology -namely, the lack of user control and flexibility in interaction finality and describes an improvement over conventional blockchain systems by providing users with enhanced control and flexibility over blockchain interactions, allowing a user to cancel or hold a request to record an interaction before it is permanently written to the blockchain. Lastly, Applicant argues that the specific limitation "hash[ing] a unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction by utilizing a hashing algorithm", as recited, in part, in amended Claim 1, results in providing "improved data security by allowing users to cancel interactions from being recorded on the blockchain before the interaction is irreversibly recorded and allowing the user to cancel the interaction reduces the chance of losing data associated with the interaction if it is accidentally sent to the wrong address, thereby improving data security for the user."
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees as after carefully analyzing the amended limitations of Claim 1, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea of determining whether to record or store an interaction between users. Specifically, the following limitations “receive a request from a first user to record the interaction between the first user and the second user; store information associated with the interaction in the data log wherein the information associated with the interaction comprises a timestamp of the interaction; determine whether a blockchain management flag is active or inactive; record the unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction in the data log in the memory…and wherein the unique interaction identifier comprises the timestamp of the interaction; and determine whether a cancel request is received, wherein: (i) if the cancel request is received, cancel the request to record the interaction, and (ii) if the cancel request is not received, hold the request to record the interaction for the hold duration, and subsequently record the interaction” are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” classified under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, as part of a transaction because the specific series of steps are performing an interaction between a first user and a second user, storing the information and determining whether a cancel request is received to either recording the interaction or delaying the request to record the interaction. Now the specific limitation “hash a unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction by utilizing a hashing algorithm…wherein the hashing algorithm comprises a keyed cryptographic hash function” is categorized within the “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” because a unique interaction identifier is being hashed using a cryptographic hash function, basically using mathematical operations to manipulate data. The process of hashing is entirely conventional and these limitations comprise using mathematical operations to manipulate data, which is an abstract idea. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as a blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea of determining whether to record or store an interaction between users. The use of “a blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device” to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The use of hashing can be considered improving data security but not the overall system comprising the blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device. Examiner believes the overall concept of holding, canceling, or confirming transactions before they are permanently recorded on a blockchain is not considered an improvement to the blockchain technology but simply executing or implementing the steps of holding, canceling, or confirming transactions using the technology recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 and 17-20 are directed to a system, claims 9-16 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite determining whether to record or store an interaction between users which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites the specific limitations “receive a request from a first user to record the interaction between the first user and the second user; store information associated with the interaction in the data log wherein the information associated with the interaction comprises a timestamp of the interaction; determine whether a blockchain management flag is active or inactive; record the unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction in the data log in the memory…and wherein the unique interaction identifier comprises the timestamp of the interaction; and determine whether a cancel request is received, wherein: (i) if the cancel request is received, cancel the request to record the interaction, and (ii) if the cancel request is not received, hold the request to record the interaction for the hold duration, and subsequently record the interaction” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, as part of a transaction. (2) Also, the limitations “hash a unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction by utilizing a hashing algorithm…wherein the hashing algorithm comprises a keyed cryptographic hash function” are grouped within the “Mathematical Concepts” specifically “mathematical calculations” (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in the (1) first case, the claims involve a series of steps for performing an interaction between a first user and a second user, storing the information and determining whether a cancel request is received to either recording the interaction or delaying the request to record the interaction. (2) second case, a unique interaction identifier is hashed utilizing a cryptographic hash function, basically using mathematical operations to manipulate data. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as a blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of “a blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device” to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device perform the steps or functions of “receive a request from a first user to record the interaction between the first user and the second user; store information associated with the interaction in the data log wherein the information associated with the interaction comprises a timestamp of the interaction; determine whether a blockchain management flag is active or inactive; hash a unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction by utilizing a hashing algorithm and record the unique interaction identifier associated with the interaction in the data log, wherein the hashing algorithm comprises a keyed cryptographic hash function and wherein the unique interaction identifier comprises the timestamp of the interaction; and determine whether a cancel request is received, wherein: (i) if the cancel request is received, cancel the request to record the interaction, and (ii) if the cancel request is not received, hold the request to record the interaction for the hold duration, and subsequently record the interaction”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of determining whether an interaction between users should be recorded. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of determining whether an interaction between users should be recorded. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of blockchain network comprising a plurality of network nodes that form a distributed network, a blockchain processor, an entity server and a first user device to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe details to determining whether to record the interaction after the hold duration expires and before the hold duration expires. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “a smart contract”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697