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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed September 22, 2026. Claims 1-2, 8-10, and 16 are currently pending and under examination in this case. Claims 7 and 15 are currently canceled, while claims 3-6 and 11-14 were previously canceled. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 are currently amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 22, 2026, has been entered.
Acknowledgements
The Objection to claim 9 is hereby withdrawn, in view of the current amendment to the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, regarding the claims, as currently amended, that the claims recite statutory subject matter. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims recite the integration of a mathematical concept or organizing principle into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as the memory, processor, and terminal nodes, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the memory, processor, and terminal nodes perform the steps or functions of storing information in multiple nodes or storage areas, grouping the nodes based on the information they are storing, and grouping information from the same source within the same nodes/storage areas, hashing the information and storing the hashed information. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims, as currently amended, do not merely invoke generic computer components to perform generic tasks.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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), the additional element(s) of using memory, processor, and terminal nodes to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of grouping information. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the memory, processor, and terminal nodes perform the steps or functions of storing information in multiple nodes or storage areas, grouping the nodes based on the information they are storing, and grouping information from the same source within the same nodes/storage areas, hashing the information and storing the hashed information. 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 memory, processor, and terminal nodes perform the storing information in multiple nodes or storage areas, grouping the nodes based on the information they are storing, and grouping information from the same source within the same nodes/storage areas, hashing the information and storing the hashed information. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9, as currently amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 8-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-2, 7-10, and 16 –
Claims 1-2, 8-10, and 16 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 1-2 and 8 are directed to a method, while claims 9-10 and 16 are directed to an apparatus or system. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite grouping and hashing information. Specifically, the claims recite storing information in multiple nodes or storage areas, grouping the nodes based on the information they are storing, organizing or sorting and grouping information from the same source within the same nodes/storage areas, hashing the information and storing the hashed information, setting an identifier for each user and each block, and issuing a token, and is therefore grouped within the organizing human activity and mathematical formulas grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as the memory, processor, and terminal nodes, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the memory, processor, and terminal nodes perform the steps or functions of storing information in multiple nodes or storage areas, grouping the nodes based on the information they are storing, organizing or sorting and grouping information from the same source within the same nodes/storage areas, hashing the information and storing the hashed information, setting an identifier for each user and each block, and issuing a token. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of using memory, processor, and terminal nodes to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of grouping information. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the memory, processor, and terminal nodes perform the steps or functions of storing information in multiple nodes or storage areas, grouping the nodes based on the information they are storing, organizing or sorting and grouping information from the same source within the same nodes/storage areas, hashing the information and storing the hashed information, setting an identifier for each user and each block, and issuing a token. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of memory, processor, and terminal nodes perform the storing information in multiple nodes or storage areas, grouping the nodes based on the information they are storing, and grouping information from the same source within the same nodes/storage areas, hashing the information and storing the hashed information. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 8, 10, and 16 further describe the abstract idea of grouping and hashing information. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock et al (US 2020/0389521) in view of Vintila et al (CA 3007992A1) and Chen et al (US 2023/0132804), and Chan et al (US 2023/000177489).
Regarding claims 1 and 9 -
Brock discloses a method of proving a continuous action uniqueness performed by an apparatus, the method comprising:
setting information on each of a plurality of actions performed by a user to a plurality of terminal nodes, and wherein the setting the information includes calculating data by applying a cryptographic hash function to information about each step that constitutes a specific action to obtain an identifier (ID) of the each step; (par 117)
grouping the sorted plurality of terminal nodes in units of two, 'n' (where, 'n' is a natural number of 2 or more) and setting a parent node of the plurality of grouped terminal nodes based on a combination of information corresponding to the grouped nodes; (par 117)
obtaining a cryptographic hash value by applying a hash function to the information corresponding to the grouped nodes; (par 112)
setting the obtained cryptographic hash value to the parent node of the plurality of terminal nodes; (par 112)
constructing a Hash tree by generating a Hash tree root based on a combination of information corresponding to the parent node, wherein the Hash tree root is generated by applying an equation of Hash tree root = hash(Σt hasht), where it is a node number at a top level; (par 117)
constructing a new Hash tree based on information about a new action and information corresponding to the Hash tree root when the new action subsequent to the plurality of actions is performed by the user, wherein the information corresponding to the Hash tree root includes an ID to identify the user, and a subject of the new action is automatically proven as the user through the Hash tree root (par 111-112, 116-117)
wherein the constructing of the new Hash tree comprises:
combining the information about the new action and the information corresponding to the Hash tree root; (par 113, 117)
obtaining a new cryptographic hash value by applying the hash function to the combination of the information corresponding to the new action and the information corresponding to the Hash tree root (par 113, 117), by using Equation:
the new terminal node (i.e., information about the new action (M+1) = hash (a last action (M) + previous Hash tree root), where the action M+1 is a new continuous action newly performed by the user; (par 113, 117)
setting the obtained new cryptographic hash value to a new terminal node; (par 117) and
constructing the new Hash tree based on the plurality of terminal nodes and the new terminal node; (par 117)
wherein an updated ID to identify the user is set for a Hash tree root of the new Hash tree; and
generating a block comprising a block hash value serving as a block identifier, block header information, and transaction-related information in which the information about the plurality of actions is set, and issuing a new NFT based on the generated block. (par 113, 114)
Vintila discloses, as Brock does not, wherein the plurality of actions generate a plurality of tokens; (par 279-280, 70)
wherein the information corresponding to the grouped nodes includes an address of each token of the plurality of tokens (par 213)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Brock with the tokens of Vintila for the processing of data for the secure creation, administration, manipulation, processing, and storage of electronic data useful in the processing of electronic payment transactions. (Vintila, abs)
Chen discloses, as Brock in view of Vintila does not, wherein the tokens are nonfungible tokens (NFT’s) (par 1-2, 30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Brock and Vintilla with the NFT’s of Chen for greater transaction security.
Chan discloses, as Brock does not, sorting information or cryptographic hash values corresponding to the plurality of terminal nodes in an ascending or descending order. (par 26, 132).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Brock with Chan for a more organized and efficient data storage.
Regarding claims 2 and 10 -
Brock discloses wherein the information on the each of the plurality of actions includes at least one of a type of the plurality of actions, a result calculated through the plurality of actions, an ID of operations configuring each of the plurality of actions, information about a subject who performed the plurality of actions, and identification information of the plurality of actions. (par 118)
Regarding claims 8 and 16 -
Brock discloses providing information, which indicates that the Hash tree is updated to be changed to the new Hash tree, based on the new action being performed by the user. (par 113, 114)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/ Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
