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 Application filed February 19, 2026. Claims 1-2, 7-10, and 15-16 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 15 are currently amended. Claims 3-6 and 11-14 are currently canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a “Hahs tree” rather than a Hash tree.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 9, as currently amended, that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity.
Upon consideration of the newly-amended claims, we find that the claims now recite organizing human activity and mathematical formulas grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106).
Applicant further argues that the claims, as currently amended, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant specifically argues DDR Holdings.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the instant case, the claims are not similar to DDR Holdings. In the case of DDR Holdings, the claim addresses the problem of retaining Web site visitors from being diverted from a host’s web site to an advertiser’s Web site, for which “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network". Here, however, the instant claim is directed to abstract idea of grouping information. Unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, Applicant did not identify any problem particular to computer networks and/or the Internet that claim allegedly overcome.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 9, as currently amended, that nothing in the cited references teaches, discloses, or suggests, wherein the information corresponding to the Hash tree root includes an identifier (ID) to identify the user, and a subject of the new action is automatically proven as the user through the Hash tree root.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is directed to Brock at par 111-112 “distributed system including the components described above is organized as a Holochain network. A Holochain network is a distributed system with content-addressed nodes, where identities, nodes, and storage elements are all addressed by cryptographic hash values . . . metadata may include, for example, the block hash of the previous block (or “parent block”), a root, and a timestamp. The block hash of the parent block (or “previous block hash”) may again be generated using a cryptographic hashing algorithm on the header of the parent block. Because each block contains a previous block hash, the sequence of hashing linking each block to its parent block creates a chain going back all the way to the first block created (or “genesis block”). The root in the metadata of each block may provide a summary of the data in the block. “
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 9, as currently amended, that nothing in the cited references teaches, discloses, or suggests, 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.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is directed to Brock at par 116-117 “HApp 505 coordinates the system to present consistent application functionality to a user or agent. HApp 505 may read and write local source chain 510, and it may also get data from and put authorized data onto shared DHT 515 . . .When HApp 505 carries out an action on the files, for instance, a file addition, deletion or change of content, a new version of the source chain is created. Accordingly, a new block may be provided including a new root which summarizes the action and new files. The action and new files may be validated based on a local validation rule before the new files are committed to the local repository and the new block is added to source chain 510.”
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, 7-10, 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 15-16 –
Claims 1-2, 7-10, and 15-16 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 7-8 are directed to a method, while claims 9-10 and 15-16 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, and grouping information from the same source within the same nodes/storage areas, hashing the information and storing the hashed information and is therefore grouped within the 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, 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.
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.
Dependent claims 2, 7-8, 10, and 15-16 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.
Claim(s) 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).
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; (par 117)
grouping the plurality of terminal nodes in units of ‘n’ (where, ‘n’ is a natural number of 2 or more) and setting a parent node of the plurality of 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; (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 identifier (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)
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 NFT’s of Chen for greater transaction security.
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 7 and 15 -
Brock discloses wherein an updated ID to identify the user is set for a Hash tree root of the new Hash tree. (par 113, 114)
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights