DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the application filed 29 November 2023.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Drawings
The examiner accepts the drawings filed 29 November 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites “clustering each of the datasets (line 14).” It is unclear what datasets provide antecedent basis for the term “the datasets.” Specifically, the claim recites “extract data from the dynamic grid (line 10)” and “combining a plurality of datasets, said plurality of datasets (line 12).”
From the claim, it appears that the extracted data from the dynamic grid causes generation of a plurality of datasets (lines 12-13).” At first glance, it appears that these datasets would provide antecedent basis for “the datasets.” However, the claim references these datasets as “said plurality of datasets (line 12).”
For this reason, the examiner cannot determine the antecedent basis for “the datasets (line 14)” and the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-7 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1. Claims 2-7 are rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to independent claim 8, the claim recites “a microprocessor; said microprocessor configured to create a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm (lines 7-8).” It is unclear to the examiner how the generative AI algorithm can be both “preprogrammed” and “created” by a microprocessor. While the applicant acts as their own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The applicant’s specification does not provide any additional guidance on how the microprocessor creates a preprogrammed AI algorithm. Instead, the Specification states, “an AI algorithm may be generated. The AI algorithm may be preprogrammed to cull the entity identifier data and/or other data stored among the communication blocks periodically or continuously. The AI algorithm may be further preprogrammed to place the data that has been culled from among the various communication blocks in a grid or a matrix (paragraph 0010).
The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
With respect to independent claim 8, the claim recites “a dynamic grid, wherein the microprocessor uses token rules and entity data rules to combine, to generate, and to extract entity identifier data (lines 9-10).”
The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. Specifically, the claim fails to indicate the relationship between the “dynamic grid” and “the microprocessor uses token rules and entity data rules to combine, to generate, and to extract entity identifier information (lines 9-10).” The claim does not provide any information regarding the “dynamic grid” and the examiner is unable to determine the structure cooperative relationships of elements.
Claims 9-14 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 8. Claims 9-14 are rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites “clustering each of the datasets (line 17).” It is unclear what datasets provide antecedent basis for the term “the datasets.” Specifically, the claim recites “extracting the data, said extracting the data from the dynamic grid (line 13)” and “combining a plurality of datasets, said plurality of datasets (line 15).”
From the claim, it appears that the extracted data from the dynamic grid causes generation of a plurality of datasets (lines 15-16).” At first glance, it appears that these datasets would provide antecedent basis for “the datasets.” However, the claim references these datasets as “said plurality of datasets (line 15).”
For this reason, the examiner cannot determine the antecedent basis for “the datasets (line 17)” and the claim is indefinite.
Claims 16-18 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 15. Claims 16-18 are rejected under similar rationale.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1-7 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 8-14 are directed toward an apparatus (machine). Claims 15-18 are directed toward a method (process). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
generating, a corresponding dynamic grid… said dynamic grid using token rules for combining and dividing data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of token rules to combine and divide data to generate a dynamic grid)
extracting data from the dynamic grid (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation or judgement to identify data to extract from the generated dynamic grid)
combining a plurality of datasets, said plurality of datasets emerging from the extraction (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of extracted data from the generated dynamic grid to combine into datasets)
clustering each of the datasets into one or more decentralized nodes, said clustering using smart contracts, said decentralized nodes from among a pool of decentralized nodes (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of smart contracts and decentralized nodes to cluster datasets)
deriving information from each of the datasets, said deriving using smart contracts (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observation of the datasets, using smart contracts, to derive information from each of the datasets)
identifying a corresponding decentralized node for placement of the datasets, said identifying using the smart contracts (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observation to identify a decentralized node for placement of the datasets using smart contracts)
selecting nodes for placement of the datasets, said selecting from among the pool of decentralized nodes, said selecting using smart contracts (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observation to select a decentralized node for placement of the datasets using smart contracts)
assigning the datasets to one or more of the selected nodes found among the decentralized nodes, said assigning using the smart contracts (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observation to assign a decentralized node for placement of the datasets using smart contracts)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm
Creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim recites the additional element:
generative AI algorithm collecting and parsing data, said collecting from a system with many sources of truth
The additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm
Creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim recites the additional element:
generative AI algorithm collecting and parsing data, said collecting from a system with many sources of truth
The additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to claim 2, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
validate the datasets… said validating creating a single source of truth (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluation to validate the datasets)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
an interactive distributive platform
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
an interactive distributive platform
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, the depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the system is configured to provide an interactive distributive platform in real-time
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the system is configured to provide an interactive distributive platform in real-time
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
With respect to claim 3, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the token rules and the entity rules are configured to determine a unique value for the data, said determining based on a most common previously stored value for each of the data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluation to determine a unique value for the data based on the most common previously stored value for each of the data)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 5:
With respect to claim 5, the claim depends upon claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the smart contracts are further configured to generate alert mechanisms for selected nodes, said selected nodes being selected for identification, and use with, external systems
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the smart contracts are further configured to generate alert mechanisms for selected nodes, said selected nodes being selected for identification, and use with, external systems
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6:
With respect to claim 6, the claim depends upon claim 2. The analysis of claim 2 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
validate the token rules and entity rules (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluation to validate the datasets)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
an interactive distributive platform
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
an interactive distributive platform
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7:
With respect to claim 7, the claim depends upon claim 5. The analysis of claim 5 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
accept requests and parse out data for use within the external systems (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing a judgment on a received request to parse data for use)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
an interactive distributive platform
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
an interactive distributive platform
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
… uses token rules and entity data rules to combine, generate, and to extract entity identifier data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing a evaluation using token rules and entity data rules to combine, generate, and extract entity identifier data)
datasets, the datasets emerging from an extraction from the dynamic grid (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation to create a dataset by extracting data from the dynamic grid)
… validation of datasets and corresponding nodes (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing a judgement to validate datasets and corresponding nodes)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
a receiver, said receiver configured to receive entity identifier information
The additional elements of data gathering is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
a database, said database configure to record and store entity identifier data
a dynamic grid
decentralized nodes, said decentralized nodes for assignment, placement, and storage of the datasets
a holochain, said holochain unifying the decentralized nodes
smart contracts, said smart contracts arranged to cluster out the datasets to corresponding decentralized nodes
an interactive distributive platform, said interactive distributive platform configured for storage and placement of datasets and corresponding nodes
As discussed above, the additional elements which are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving data in memory and/or electronic recordkeeping. The courts have found limitations directed to storing and retrieving information in memory and electronic recordkeeping, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
a microprocessor, said microprocessor configured to create a preprogrammed generative AI system
The creation of a generative AI system is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
a receiver, said receiver configured to receive entity identifier information
The additional elements of data gathering is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
a database, said database configure to record and store entity identifier data
a dynamic grid
decentralized nodes, said decentralized nodes for assignment, placement, and storage of the datasets
a holochain, said holochain unifying the decentralized nodes
smart contracts, said smart contracts arranged to cluster out the datasets to corresponding decentralized nodes
an interactive distributive platform, said interactive distributive platform configured for storage and placement of datasets and corresponding nodes
As discussed above, the additional elements which are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving data in memory and/or electronic recordkeeping. The courts have found limitations directed to storing and retrieving information in memory and electronic recordkeeping, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
a microprocessor, said microprocessor configured to create a preprogrammed generative AI system
The creation of a generative AI system is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
With respect to claim 9, the claim depends upon claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm
Creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim recites the additional element:
generative AI algorithm collecting and parsing data, said collecting from a system with many sources of truth
The additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm
Creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim recites the additional element:
generative AI algorithm collecting and parsing data, said collecting from a system with many sources of truth
The additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10:
With respect to claim 10, the claim depends upon claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
identify selected nodes from among the decentralized nodes (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses a judgement to select nodes from among the decentralized nodes)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 11:
With respect to claim 11, the claim depends upon claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the token rules and the entity rules are configured to determine a unique value for the data, said determining based on a most common previously stored value for each of the data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluation to determine a unique value for the data based on the most common previously stored value for each of the data)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 12:
With respect to claim 12, the claim depends upon claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein each of the decentralized nodes is found among a pool of decentralized nodes said pool of decentralized nodes connotating a holochain (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to find a decentralized node within a pool of decentralized nodes (holochain))
Step 2A, Prong 2:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 13:
With respect to claim 13, the claim depends upon claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
processing the smart contracts and assigning, said assigning using the smart contracts, the datasets to selected nodes (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses an observation to assign datasets to selected nodes based upon smart contracts)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2B.
Claim 14:
With respect to claim 14, the claim depends upon claim 8. The analysis of claim 8 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the smart contracts are further configured to generate alert mechanisms for selected nodes, said selected nodes being selected use with external systems
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the smart contracts are further configured to generate alert mechanisms for selected nodes, said selected nodes being selected for identification, and use with, external systems
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
parses data
generating a corresponding dynamic grid (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of token rules to combine and divide data to generate a dynamic grid)
combining and dividing the data, said combining and dividing the data using token rules and entity rules in the dynamic grid (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of extracted data from the generated dynamic grid to combine into datasets)
extracting the data, said extracting the data from the dynamic grid (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation or judgement to identify data to extract from the generated dynamic grid)
combining a plurality of datasets, said plurality of datasets emerging from the extraction (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of extracted data from the generated dynamic grid to combine into datasets)
clustering each of the datasets into one or more decentralized nodes, said clustering using smart contracts, said decentralized nodes found among a pool of nodes, said smart contracts deriving information from each of the datasets to identify a corresponding decentralized node for placement of datasets (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of smart contracts and decentralized nodes to cluster datasets)
selecting nodes for placement of the datasets, said selecting from among the pool of decentralized nodes (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observation to select a decentralized node for placement of the datasets using smart contracts)
assigning the datasets to one or more of the selected nodes found among the decentralized nodes, said assigning using the smart contracts (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observation to assign a decentralized node for placement of the datasets using smart contracts)
validating the datasets, the entity rules and the token rules… said validating creating a single source of truth (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluation to validate the datasets)
determining datasets that require identification, and use with, external systems, and determining using… smart contracts (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing a judgment to determine a dataset requiring identification and use with external systems)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
creating a core preprogrammed generative AI algorithm
Creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim recites the additional element:
the generative AI algorithm that collects…, the data collecting from many sources of truth, said many sources of truth collecting input into the system
The additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
an interactive distributive platform
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
providing a response to the one or more on-demand requests
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
creating a core preprogrammed generative AI algorithm
Creating a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim recites the additional element:
the generative AI algorithm that collects…, the data collecting from many sources of truth, said many sources of truth collecting input into the system
The additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The claim recites the additional element:
an interactive distributive platform
The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites the additional element:
providing a response to the one or more on-demand requests
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16:
With respect to claim 16, the claim depends upon claim 15. The analysis of claim 15 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein providing the response to the one or more on-demand requests occurs in real-time
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein providing the response to the one or more on-demand requests occurs in real-time
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17:
With respect to claim 17, the claim depends upon claim 15. The analysis of claim 15 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites the abstract idea identified with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the smart contracts are further configured to generate alert mechanisms for selected nodes, said selected nodes being selected because the selected nodes are configured for use with external systems
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
wherein the smart contracts are further configured to generate alert mechanisms for selected nodes, said selected nodes being selected because the selected nodes are configured for use with external systems
These limitations amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18:
With respect to claim 18, the claim depends upon claim 15. The analysis of claim 15 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claim recites:
wherein the token rules and the entity rules are configured to divide the data by creating a unique value for all the data, and creating a unique value by determining one value from among previously stored values (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses evaluation to determine a unique value for the data based on the most common previously stored value for each of the data)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B:
There are no additional elements considered under Step 2B.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose et al. (US 2021/0119796, published 22 April 2021, hereafter Jose) and further in view of Toffey et al. (US 11804057, patented 31 October 2023, hereafter Toffey) and further in view of Sar Shalom et al. (US 12591775, filed 29 July 2022, hereafter Sar Shalom).
As per independent claim 1, Jose discloses a method for providing an interactive distributive platform, said interactive distributive platform that enables a single source of truth and consistent data recording, the method comprising:
clustering each of the datasets into one or more decentralized nodes, said clustering using smart contracts, said decentralized nodes from among a pool of decentralized nodes (paragraphs 0004 and 0007: Here, a blockchain defines a chronological database of transactions (ledger). This database allows for peer-to-peer, decentralized, communications between nodes (paragraph 0006). Smart contracts can be used to cluster data to one or more of the decentralized nodes based upon meeting the conditions of the contract)
deriving information from each of the datasets, and deriving using smart contracts (Figure 5; paragraphs 0072-0075: Here, the smart contract estimates the amount of tokens required for execution based on the data type of each data set)
identifying a corresponding decentralized node for placement of the datasets, the identifying using the smart contracts (Figure 8; paragraphs 0092-0134: Here, based upon a smart contract, the dataset is provided to the master node (paragraphs 0096-0098). The master node then identifies corresponding slave nodes for placement of the dataset for execution)
selecting nodes for placement of the datasets, said selecting from among the pool of decentralized nodes, said selecting using smart contracts (Figure 8; paragraphs 0092-0134: Here, based upon a smart contract, the dataset is provided to the master node (paragraphs 0096-0098). The master node then identifies corresponding slave nodes for placement of the dataset for execution from among a pool of decentralized slave nodes)
assigning the datasets to one or more of the selected nodes found among the decentralized nodes, said assigning using the smart contracts (Figure 8; paragraphs 0092-0134: Here, based upon a smart contract, the dataset is provided to the master node (paragraphs 0096-0098). The master node then identifies corresponding slave nodes for placement of the dataset for execution)
Jose fails to specifically disclose:
creating a core preprogrammed generative AI algorithm, said generative AI algorithm collecting and parsing data, said collecting from a system with many sources of truth
generating a corresponding dynamic grid, said generating using the AI algorithm, said dynamic grid using token rules and entity rules for combining and dividing the data
extracting data from the dynamic grid, said extracting using the AI algorithm
combining a plurality of datasets, said plurality of datasets emerging from the extraction
However, Toffey, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward a digital asset generation and classification platform, discloses:
creating a core preprogrammed generative AI algorithm, said generative AI algorithm collecting and parsing data (column 8, lines 23-31: Here, a digital asset generation platform includes a multi-stage deep learning and machine learning tool (generative AI algorithm) to parse and extract key value pairs from unstructured documents)
generating a corresponding dynamic grid, said generating using the AI algorithm, said dynamic grid using token rules and entity rules for combining and dividing the data (column 26, lines 17-52: Here, a multi-cell matrix is generated based on dynamic mapping (dynamic grid) using the mapping template rules for organizing data within a header (combining and dividing data) based on a key value pair (token/entity))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating a classification grid based upon a rule set for use with smart contracts (Toffey: column 24, lines 45-67).
Additionally, Sar Shalom, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward extracted and classifying data, discloses:
collecting from a system with many sources of truth (Figure 8; column 9, lines 22-38: Here, sources of truth (ground truths) are identified as labeled categories. These labels may then be applied to content (column 10, lines 23-37))
extracting data from the dynamic grid, said extracting using the AI algorithm (Figure 4; column 8, line 56- column 9, line 12: Here, data is extracted for training the neural network (AI algorithm))
combining a plurality of datasets, said plurality of datasets emerging from the extraction (Figure 5; column 9, lines 13-38: Here, the datasets are combined into classes to generate predication categories)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Sar Shalom with Jose-Toffey, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for combining datasets based upon classification using the model (Sar Shalom: column 9, lines 13-38).
As per dependent claim 2, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Toffey discloses validate the datasets in ana interactive distributive platform, the validating creating a single source of truth (column 11, lines 15-20: Here, key value pairs are validated. These key value pairs are treated as a single source of truth and used to retrain the SSD and NLP models). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose-Toffey-Sar Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for validating and retraining based upon the validated key value pairs (Toffey: column 11, lines 15-20).
As per dependent claim 3, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Toffey discloses wherein the system is configured to provide an interactive distributive platform in real-time (column 7, lines 27-65: Here, a user interface is displayed. This user interface allows for a user to define the mapping template in real time and receive feedback via a preview of the results of the mapping to verify accuracy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose-Toffey-Sar Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed displaying a preview to allow for user verification of mapping accuracy (Toffey: column 7, lines 59-65).
As per dependent claim 5, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Jose discloses wherein the smart contracts are further configured to generate an alert mechanism for selected nodes, said selected nodes being selected for identification, and use with, external systems (Figures 6-7; paragraph 0079: Here, an external customer system requests a computation using the smart contract and tokens. The token manager delegates the operation to a slave node for performing the operation. If the user has insufficient tokens to perform the operations, an alert mechanism, reports an “out of token” status to the customer through the smart contract).
As per dependent claim 6, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 2, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Toffey discloses wherein the interactive distributive platform is further configure to validate the token rules and entity rules (column 11, lines 15-20: Here, key value pairs are validated. These key value pairs are treated as a single source of truth and used to retrain the SSD and NLP models). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose-Toffey-Sar Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for validating and retraining based upon the validated key value pairs (Toffey: column 11, lines 15-20).
As per dependent claim 7, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 5, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Toffey discloses wherein the interactive distributive platform is configured to accept requests and parse out data for use with the external systems (column 7, lines 27-65: Here, a user interface is displayed. This user interface allows for a user to define the mapping template in real time and receive feedback via a preview of the results of the mapping to verify accuracy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose-Toffey-Sar Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed displaying a preview to allow for user verification of mapping accuracy (Toffey: column 7, lines 59-65).
As per independent claim 8, Jose discloses the apparatus comprising:
a receiver, said receiver configured to receive entity identifier data (paragraph 0023: Here, a token application is a receiver configured to receive entity identifier data, such as information related to the customer and the number of available tokens)
a database, said database configured to record and store entity identifier data (paragraph 0004: Here, the blockchain in a chronological database of transactions grouped in a block and validated by a network of nodes)
decentralized nodes, said decentralized nodes for assignment, placement and storage of datasets (paragraphs 0004 and 0007: Here, a blockchain defines a chronological database of transactions (ledger). This database allows for peer-to-peer, decentralized, communications between nodes (paragraph 0006). Smart contracts can be used to cluster data to one or more of the decentralized nodes based upon meeting the conditions of the contract)
a holochain, said holochain unifying the decentralized nodes (paragraphs 0004 and 0007: Here, a blockchain defines a chronological database of transactions (ledger). This database allows for peer-to-peer, decentralized, communications between nodes (paragraph 0006). Smart contracts can be used to cluster data to one or more of the decentralized nodes based upon meeting the conditions of the contract. Additionally, the applicant further defines the term holochain as a “pool of decentralized nodes connotating a holochain (claim 12).” The examiner interprets the one or more decentralized nodes of Jose as equivalent to the claimed holochain)
smart contracts, said smart contracts arranged to cluster out the datasets to corresponding decentralized nodes (Figure 8; paragraphs 0092-0134: Here, based upon a smart contract, the dataset is provided to the master node (paragraphs 0096-0098). The master node then identifies corresponding slave nodes for placement of the dataset for execution)
Jose fails to specifically disclose:
a microprocessor, said microprocessor configured to create a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm
a dynamic grid, wherein the microprocessor uses token rules and entity data rules to combine, to generate, and to extract entity identifier data
datasets, said datasets emerging from an extraction from the dynamic grid
an interactive distributive platform, said interactive distributive platform configure for storage and placement of the datasets and corresponding nodes said interactive platform configured for validation of the datasets and corresponding nodes
However, Toffey, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward a digital asset generation and classification platform, discloses:
a microprocessor (column 48, lines 1-16), said microprocessor configured to create a preprogrammed generative AI algorithm (column 8, lines 23-31: Here, a digital asset generation platform includes a multi-stage deep learning and machine learning tool (generative AI algorithm) to parse and extract key value pairs from unstructured documents)
a dynamic grid, wherein the microprocessor uses token rules and entity data rules to combine, to generate, and to extract entity identifier data (column 26, lines 17-52: Here, a multi-cell matrix is generated based on dynamic mapping (dynamic grid) using the mapping template rules for organizing data within a header (combining and dividing data) based on a key value pair (token/entity))
an interactive distributive platform, said interactive distributive platform configure for storage and placement of the datasets and corresponding nodes said interactive platform configured for validation of the datasets and corresponding nodes (column 11, lines 15-20: Here, key value pairs are validated. These key value pairs are treated as a single source of truth and used to retrain the SSD and NLP models).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating a classification grid based upon a rule set for use with smart contracts (Toffey: column 24, lines 45-67).
Additionally, Sar Shalom, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward extracted and classifying data, discloses:
datasets, said datasets emerging from an extraction from the dynamic grid (Figure 4; column 8, line 56- column 9, line 12: Here, data is extracted for training the neural network (AI algorithm))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Sar Shalom with Jose-Toffey, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for combining datasets based upon classification using the model (Sar Shalom: column 9, lines 13-38).
As per dependent claim 9, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 8, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Toffey discloses wherein the microprocessor is configured to create the AI algorithm in real-time (column 8, lines 23-31: Here, a digital asset generation platform includes a multi-stage deep learning and machine learning tool (generative AI algorithm) to parse and extract key value pairs from unstructured documents). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose-Toffey-Sar Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating a classification grid based upon a rule set for use with smart contracts (Toffey: column 24, lines 45-67).
As per dependent claim 10, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 8, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Jose discloses wherein the smart contracts are further configured to identify selected nodes from among the decentralized nodes (Figure 8; paragraphs 0092-0134: Here, based upon a smart contract, the dataset is provided to the master node (paragraphs 0096-0098). The master node then identifies corresponding slave nodes for placement of the dataset for execution).
As per dependent claim 12, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 8, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Jose discloses wherein each of the decentralized nodes is found among a pool of decentralized nodes and said pool of decentralized nodes connotating a holochain (Figure 8; paragraphs 0092-0134: Here, based upon a smart contract, the dataset is provided to the master node (paragraphs 0096-0098). The master node then identifies corresponding slave nodes for placement of the dataset for execution).
As per dependent claim 13, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 8, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Jose discloses processing the smart contracts and assigning, said assigning using the smart contracts, the datasets to selected nodes (Figure 8; paragraphs 0092-0134: Here, based upon a smart contract, the dataset is provided to the master node (paragraphs 0096-0098). The master node then identifies corresponding slave nodes for placement of the dataset for execution).
As per dependent claim 14, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 8, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Jose discloses wherein the smart contracts are further configured to generate alert mechanisms for selected nodes, said selected nodes being selected for use with, external systems (Figures 6-7; paragraph 0079: Here, an external customer system requests a computation using the smart contract and tokens. The token manager delegates the operation to a slave node for performing the operation. If the user has insufficient tokens to perform the operations, an alert mechanism, reports an “out of token” status to the customer through the smart contract).
As per independent claim 15, Jose discloses a method comprising:
clustering each of the datasets into one or more decentralized nodes, said clustering using smart contracts, said decentralized nodes found among a pool of nodes, said smart contracts deriving information from each of the datasets to identify a corresponding decentralized node for placement of the datasets (paragraphs 0004 and 0007: Here, a blockchain defines a chronological database of transactions (ledger). This database allows for peer-to-peer, decentralized, communications between nodes (paragraph 0006). Smart contracts can be used to cluster data to one or more of the decentralized nodes based upon meeting the conditions of the contract)
selecting nodes for placement of the datasets, said selecting from among the pool of decentralized nodes (Figure 8; paragraphs 0092-0134: Here, based upon a smart contract, the dataset is provided to the master node (paragraphs 0096-0098). The master node then identifies corresponding slave nodes for placement of the dataset for execution from among a pool of decentralized slave nodes)
assigning the datasets to one or more of the selected nodes found among the decentralized nodes, said assigning using the smart contracts (Figure 8; paragraphs 0092-0134: Here, based upon a smart contract, the dataset is provided to the master node (paragraphs 0096-0098). The master node then identifies corresponding slave nodes for placement of the dataset for execution)
Jose fails to specifically disclose:
creating a core preprogrammed generative AI algorithm, said generative AI algorithm that collects and parses data, said data collecting from many sources of truth, said many sources of truth collecting data input into the system
generating a corresponding dynamic grid, said generating using the AI algorithm
combining and dividing the data, said combining and dividing the data using token rules and entity rules in the dynamic grid
extracting the data, said extracting the data from the dynamic grid using the AI algorithm
combining a plurality of datasets, said plurality of datasets emerging from the extraction
validating the datasets, the entity rules and the token rules in an interactive distributive platform, said validating crating a single source of truth
determining datasets that require identification, and use with, external systems, said determining using the interactive distributive platform and smart contracts providing a response to the one or more on-demand requests
However, Toffey, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward a digital asset generation and classification platform, discloses:
creating a core preprogrammed generative AI algorithm, said generative AI algorithm collecting and parsing data (column 8, lines 23-31: Here, a digital asset generation platform includes a multi-stage deep learning and machine learning tool (generative AI algorithm) to parse and extract key value pairs from unstructured documents)
generating a corresponding dynamic grid, said generating using the AI algorithm, said dynamic grid using token rules and entity rules for combining and dividing the data (column 26, lines 17-52: Here, a multi-cell matrix is generated based on dynamic mapping (dynamic grid) using the mapping template rules for organizing data within a header (combining and dividing data) based on a key value pair (token/entity))
validating the datasets, the entity rules and the token rules in an interactive distributive platform, said validating crating a single source of truth
(column 11, lines 15-20: Here, key value pairs are validated. These key value pairs are treated as a single source of truth and used to retrain the SSD and NLP models)
determining datasets that require identification, and use with, external systems, said determining using the interactive distributive platform and smart contracts providing a response to the one or more on-demand requests (column 7, lines 27-65: Here, a user interface is displayed. This user interface allows for a user to define the mapping template in real time and receive feedback via a preview of the results of the mapping to verify accuracy)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating a classification grid based upon a rule set for use with smart contracts (Toffey: column 24, lines 45-67).
Additionally, Sar Shalom, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward extracted and classifying data, discloses:
collecting from a system with many sources of truth (Figure 8; column 9, lines 22-38: Here, sources of truth (ground truths) are identified as labeled categories. These labels may then be applied to content (column 10, lines 23-37))
extracting data from the dynamic grid, said extracting using the AI algorithm (Figure 4; column 8, line 56- column 9, line 12: Here, data is extracted for training the neural network (AI algorithm))
combining a plurality of datasets, said plurality of datasets emerging from the extraction (Figure 5; column 9, lines 13-38: Here, the datasets are combined into classes to generate predication categories)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Sar Shalom with Jose-Toffey, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for combining datasets based upon classification using the model (Sar Shalom: column 9, lines 13-38).
As per dependent claim 16, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 15, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Toffey discloses wherein providing the response to the one or more on-demand requests occurs in real-time (column 7, lines 27-65: Here, a user interface is displayed. This user interface allows for a user to define the mapping template in real time and receive feedback via a preview of the results of the mapping to verify accuracy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose-Toffey-Sar Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed displaying a preview to allow for user verification of mapping accuracy (Toffey: column 7, lines 59-65).
As per dependent claim 17, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 15, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Jose discloses wherein the smart contracts are further configured to generate an alert mechanism for selected nodes, said selected nodes being selected because the selected nodes are configured for use with external systems (Figures 6-7; paragraph 0079: Here, an external customer system requests a computation using the smart contract and tokens. The token manager delegates the operation to a slave node for performing the operation. If the user has insufficient tokens to perform the operations, an alert mechanism, reports an “out of token” status to the customer through the smart contract).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom and further in view of Herb et al. (US 2023/0017632, published 19 January 2023, hereafter Herb).
As per dependent claim 4, Jose, Toffey, and Sar Shalom disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Jose fails to specifically disclose wherein the token rules and the entity rules are configured to divide the data by creating a unique value for all the data, said creating a unique value by determining one value from among previously stored values.
However, Toffey, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward a digital asset generation and classification platform, discloses wherein the token rules and the entity rules are configured to divide the data by creating a unique value for all the data (column 26, lines 17-52: Here, a multi-cell matrix is generated based on dynamic mapping (dynamic grid) using the mapping template rules for organizing data within a header (combining and dividing data) based on a key value pair (token/entity)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Toffey with Jose, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generating a classification grid based upon a rule set for use with smart contracts (Toffey: column 24, lines 45-67).
Additionally, Herb, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward assigning unique values based on previous values, discloses creating a unique value for all the data, said creating a unique value by determining one value from among previously stored values (claim 8: Here, a unique value is assigned to the digital asset based upon the previous values). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Herb with Jose-Toffey-Sar Shalom, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for providing unique keys for the distributed ledger (Herb: claim 8).
With respect to claims 11 and 18, the claims recite the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 4. Claim 11 and 18 are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yampolsky et al. (US 2023/0421351): Discloses a cryptographic system for securing data on a blockchain using public keys and a homomorphic encrypting mechanism (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights