DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 12/7/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 8/7/2025.
a. Claims 1-5 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-5 are pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/7/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-5 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A server that communicates with a holder terminal, the holder terminal being a terminal device of a holder of a non-fungible token issued with distributed ledger technology, the non-fungible token being associated with an object, the object being stored by an administrator administrating the object,
[B] obtains a monitoring record of a state of the object, the monitoring record being generated by a monitoring device that monitors the state of the object during storage of the object;
[C] generates first transaction data including the monitoring record, triggered by reception of a generation request to generate the transaction data, wherein the processing device generates the first transaction data, triggered by reception of the generation request from the holder terminal.
a storage device that
[D] stores a first distributed ledger for recording a history of transactions in a private blockchain network, and
a second distributed ledger for
[E] recording a history of transactions in a public blockchain network,
the communication device
[F] communicates with each node of the private blockchain network, and each node of the public blockchain network,
the processing device
[G] broadcasts the first transaction data to each node of the private blockchain network through the communication device, and
the processing device
[H] registers, in the second distributed ledger of the public blockchain network, a portion of the monitoring record registered in the first distributed ledger of the private blockchain network, the registration including:
[I] calculating, at predetermined time intervals, a hash value of the monitoring record registered in the first distributed ledger of the private blockchain network;
[J] generating second transaction data for registering the hash value in the second distributed ledger of the public blockchain network; and
[K] broadcasting the second transaction data to each node of the public blockchain network.
Independent claim 1 recites: obtaining a record ([B]); generates transaction (i.e., activity) data based on the obtained record ([C]), records a transaction history, communicates with the blockchain node and broadcasts the transaction data ([E], [F], [G]), registers and calculates a hash value a portion of the monitoring record (([H], [I]), generates and broadcast a second transaction data ([J], [K]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the qualifiers “wherein the processing device generates the transaction data, triggered by reception of the generation request from the holder terminal.” as applied to the processing device, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: stores a first distributed ledger for recording a history of transactions in a private blockchain network ([D]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 1 is deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2 recites:
[A] generates the first transaction data, triggered by reception of the generation request from an administrator terminal that is a terminal device of the administrator.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites:
[A] generates the transaction data again, triggered by elapse of a predetermined time from last generation of the first transaction data.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
[A] obtains the monitoring request, and
[B] generates the first transaction data including the obtained monitoring record.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
[A] generates the first transaction data including the monitoring record stored in the storage device.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
In sum, Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the relevant portion of 35 U.S.C. §132(a):
No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2163.06 stipulates – If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-5 have been amended by Applicant to include the limitation “first transaction data”, “first distributed ledger”, “second transaction data”, “second distributed ledger”. The claim terms are disclosed by the specification as filed, drawings or initial set of claims.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnamoorty et al (US 2016/0232411), in view of Grix et al (US 2023/0042500).
Regarding Claim 1: Krishnamoorty discloses: A server that communicates with
the object being stored by an administrator administrating the object, {see at least fig1, rc120, [0038]-[0040] parking space (reads on administrator of object (the car in the parking lot)}
the server comprising:
a communication device that {see at least fig1, rc106, [0033] client-server architecture; [0038] node logic}
obtains a monitoring record of a state of the object, {see at least [0038] images recorded by camera (reads on monitoring record)}
the monitoring record being generated by a monitoring device that monitors the state of the object during storage of the object; {see at least fig1, rc116, rc122, [0038] parked vehicle (reads on state of the object) monitored by camera}
a processing device that
generates first transaction data including the monitoring record, triggered by reception of a generation request to generate the first transaction data, and {see at least fig2, rc206, [0042] parking metadata (reads on monitoring record)}
wherein the processing device generates the first transaction data, triggered by reception of the generation request from the holder terminal. {see at least fig2, rc202-rc206, [0040]-[0042] transmitting parking data (reads on transaction data)}
generating second transaction data for registering the hash value in the second distributed ledger of the public blockchain network; and
Krishnamoorty does not disclose, however, Grix discloses:
… a holder of a non-fungible token issued with distributed ledger technology {see at least fig1A, rc150, [0082] NFT with vehicle identifier stored in a blockchain ledger}
the non-fungible token being associated with and used as a certificate for certifying authority to possess or use an object, {see at least fig1A, rc150, [0082] NFT with vehicle identifier stored in a blockchain ledger}
a storage device that
stores a first distributed ledger for recording a history of transactions in a private blockchain network, and {see at least fig1, rc110, rc150, [0033] distributed ledger stored in computers}
a second distributed ledger for
recording a history of transactions in a public blockchain network, {see at least fig4, rc415, [0089]-[0090] recording transactions}
the communication device
communicates with each node of the private blockchain network, and each node of the public blockchain network, {see at least [0057] node of blockchain ledger}
the processing device
broadcasts the first transaction data to each node of the private blockchain network through the communication device, and {see at least [0044] broadcasting protocol}
the processing device
registers, in the second distributed ledger of the public blockchain network, a portion of the monitoring record registered in the first distributed ledger of the private blockchain network, the registration including: {see at least fig4, rc415, [0089]-[0090] recording transactions}
calculating, at predetermined time intervals, a hash value of the monitoring record registered in the first distributed ledger of the private blockchain network; {see at least [0035] hash value for each block}
broadcasting the second transaction data to each node of the public blockchain network. {see at least [0044] broadcasting protocol}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Krishnamoorty to include the elements of Grix. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide for an accurate book keeping of the developments. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Krishnamoorty evidently discloses monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle. Grix is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of blockchain and an NFT associated with an object in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle, as well as blockchain and an NFT associated with an object are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Krishnamoorty, as well as Grix would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Krishnamoorty / Grix.
Regarding Claim 2: Krishnamoorty, Grix discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Grix further discloses: wherein the processing device further
generates the first transaction data, triggered by reception of the generation request from an administrator terminal that is a terminal device of the administrator. {see at least fig2, rc202-rc206, [0040]-[0042] transmitting parking data (reads on transaction data). Krishnamoorty fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation (“triggered by reception of the generation request …”); however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the transaction data will be generated based on a request – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
Regarding Claim 3: Krishnamoorty, Grix discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Grix further discloses: wherein the processing device further
generates the first transaction data again, triggered by elapse of a predetermined time from last generation of the first transaction data. {see at least [0046] time limit on parking (reads impliclty on “elapse of a predetermined time”, for checking the parking time requirement, second transaction data has to be generated}
Regarding Claim 4: Krishnamoorty, Grix discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Grix further discloses: wherein triggered by reception of the generation request, the communication device
obtains the monitoring request, and {see at least [0004] identifying parking policy/rules violations (reads on monitoring request)}
the processing device
generates the first transaction data including the obtained monitoring record. {see at least fig1, rc106, rc124, rc126, [0038] monitoring record; parking metadata (reads on transaction data)}
Regarding Claim 5: Krishnamoorty, Grix discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Grix further discloses:
wherein the storage device stores the monitoring record obtained by the communication device, and {see at least fig4, rc415, [0089]-[0090] recording transactions}
wherein triggered by reception of the generation request, the processing device
generates the transaction data including the monitoring record stored in the storage device. {see at least fig2, rc208, [0043] maintaining separate records of each camera node (reads on storing)}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Krishnamoorty, Grix to include additional elements of Grix. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to preserve records for future purposes. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Krishnamoorty, Grix evidently discloses monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle. Grix is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of storing records in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160001720 A1 VADGAMA; Sunil Keshavji et al. CONFIGURABLE RENTAL VEHICLE - A rental vehicle has features that can be activated or deactivated wirelessly. Additional features can be purchased and activated after a customer has paid for an initial set of features and started to use the vehicle. Configuration of the vehicle is automated by transmitting a configuration message to the vehicle.
US 20120103245 A1 Lambertus; Detlef Method for Detecting Anomalies on a Submarine Object - A method for detecting anomalies on a submarine object, in particular in the submarine region on a hull of a moored warcraft, which method carries out very reliable sensing of the submarine object by way of an unmanned small submarine vehicle that is equipped with simple sensor equipment, such as an acoustic sensor for measuring distances and a barometric cell for determining depth, and which method obtains a profile of the submarine object by navigating the small submarine vehicle with a constant transversal distance to the submarine object, in which profile an anomaly present on the submarine object becomes is apparent from the profile line.
US 20160307048 A1 Krishnamoorthy; Lokesh Babu et al. SIMULATING CAMERA NODE OUTPUT FOR PARKING POLICY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - A system comprising a computer-readable storage medium storing at least one program and a method for simulating output of camera nodes configured to monitor parking is presented. The method may include generating a simulation file that includes entries mimicking camera node output, where each entry represents metadata associated with an image of a parking space and includes a timestamp and a set of pixel coordinates representing a location of a vehicle in the image. The method further includes simulating the output of the camera nodes using the simulation file. The simulating of the output of the particular camera node may include chronologically reading entries from the simulation file according to a chronology of the entries defined by the time stamps of each entry. The simulating of the output further may include generating a data packet for each entry and transmitting the data packet to a network-based processing system.
US 20080065274 A1 Taki; Naoki et al. Vehicle Remote Control Apparatus And System - A vehicle remote control apparatus for causing a vehicle to perform a requested operation in response to a remote operation request from a vehicle user includes an acquisition unit configured to acquire information about vehicle condition of the vehicle, and an operation instruction transmission controlling unit configured to compare a remote operation requested from the vehicle user with the information about the vehicle condition, to transmit an operation instruction corresponding to the requested remote operation to the vehicle if the requested remote operation has not been performed, and to refrain from transmitting an operation instruction corresponding to the requested remote operation to the vehicle if the requested remote operation has already been performed at the vehicle and is thus not performable.
US 20030034915 A1 Sasaki, Yoshihiro et al. Vehicle theft prevention device - There is provided a vehicle theft prevention device including a navigation device to detect the position of a vehicle on the earth, a security device to detect that the vehicle has been stolen, and an automobile telephone to transmit the position of the vehicle to a monitoring center after the detection of the theft of the vehicle. When the security device does not detect the theft of the vehicle, a position of the vehicle periodically detected by the navigation device is stored in a memory of the security device. When the theft of the vehicle is detected by the security device, the latest information of the vehicle stored in this memory is transmitted to the monitoring center by the automobile telephone, and the monitoring center can immediately determine the theft and the position of the stolen vehicle.
US 20190156676 A1 MORAGAS LOREN; Jordi CONTROL SYSTEM AND PROCEDURE FOR VEHICLES AND PARKING SPACES FOR OUTDOOR PARKING LOTS - A control system and method for vehicles (11, 12) and parking spaces for outdoor parking lots (10), comprising: a reader (1) of identification labels for a vehicle (11) at the time of entry to an outdoor parking lot (10), a server (31) for obtaining a global image of the parking lot (10) and detecting at least one parking space in the image, multiple overhead cameras (2) covering at least one area (101, 102, 103, 104) of the parking lot (10) to capture at least one image of the vehicle (11) from the time of entry to a time of parking of the vehicle (11) in a parking space or a time of exit of the vehicle (11) from the parking lot (10); sending each captured image to the server (31) which gathers all the images in order to obtain the global image of the parking lot (10) and track the vehicle (11) in said image; a database (32) linked to the server (31) for storing each image of the vehicle (11) in association with its identification label.
US 20230174089 A1 Khamis; Alaa M. et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE AS A SERVICE WITH CONTEXT-BASED ADAPTIVE CONTROL - A system for context-based adaptive virtual experience control in a vehicle is provided. The system includes an output device configured for providing a sensory output to a user of the vehicle and a computerized virtual experience control module configured for controlling the output device based upon a virtual experience mode. The system further includes a computerized context-based adaptive control module configured for monitoring contextual data related to one of the user of the vehicle or operation of the vehicle, monitoring feedback from the user related to one of favor or disfavor related to the virtual experience mode, and utilizing the contextual data and the feedback from the user to selectively, automatically command activation of the virtual experience mode.
US 20210078601 A1 Sugano; Tatsuya AUTOMATIC PARKING SYSTEM - An automatic parking system instructs a plurality of autonomous driving vehicles in a parking lot such that each autonomous driving vehicle travels along a target route and parks in a target parking space within the parking lot. The automatic parking system includes: a vehicle instruction unit configured to direct the autonomous driving vehicle the target route for reaching the target parking space, and to issue a pause instruction and an advance instruction to the autonomous driving vehicle autonomously traveling along the target route. The vehicle instruction unit issues an autonomous travel reservation instruction for causing the autonomous driving vehicle to autonomously travel along the target route when communication with the autonomous driving vehicle is interrupted.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “human mind is not capable of practically performing these amended features.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Recording transactions, communicating, broadcasting and encrypting the data are operations that could be easily performed in the human mind.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Moreover, amended independent claim 1 recites more than just mere instructions to apply the alleged judicial exception to a computer (Office Action at p. 4). Rather, the claims have been amended to specifically recite patent-eligible details by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The recited elements, like private blockchain network, a first distributed ledger, a second distributed ledger, communication device, storage device are all a technological environment to which the disclosed process is linked.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “As such, meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea are recited in independent claim 1 since the independent claim 1 has been amended to recite not only constituent components of the server but also particular operations for which the processing device acts upon by registering, in the second distributed ledger of the public blockchain network, a portion of the monitoring record in the first distributed ledger of the private blockchain network, including broadcasting generated second transaction data to each node of the public blockchain network.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
As identified at Step2A2 of the eligibility analysis, all the mentioned steps can be executed by the human mind.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Therefore, these additional claim elements, as amended in independent claim 1, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they impose meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Still further, when the claims are viewed as an ordered combination and as a whole, they recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action concludes at Step 2B:
The independent and dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“monitoring the activity of and related to an object, e.g., a vehicle”).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The combination of these additional claim elements, when viewed in its entirety with the rest of the claimed elements, do not constitute well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field. Therefore, amended independent claim 1 recites subject matter that integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not make such an allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits “However, such disclosure does not reasonably disclose or suggest the non-fungible token being associated with and used as a certificate for certifying authority to possess or use an object, as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Grix discloses: the non-fungible token being associated with and used as a certificate for certifying authority to possess or use an object, {see at least fig1A, rc150, [0082] NFT with vehicle identifier stored in a blockchain ledger}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “However, such disclosure does not reasonably disclose or suggest a storage device that stores a first distributed ledger for recording a history of transactions in a private blockchain network, and a second distributed ledger for recording a history of transactions in a public blockchain network, as further recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Grix discloses: a storage device that stores a first distributed ledger for recording a history of transactions in a private blockchain network, and {see at least fig1, rc110, rc150, [0033] distributed ledger stored in computers}; registers, in the second distributed ledger of the public blockchain network, a portion of the monitoring record registered in the first distributed ledger of the private blockchain network, the registration including: {see at least fig4, rc415, [0089]-[0090] recording transactions}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “However, such disclosure does not reasonably disclose or suggest the processing device generates the first transaction data, triggered by reception of the generation request from the holder terminal, as originally recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Krishnamoorty discloses: generates first transaction data including the monitoring record, triggered by reception of a generation request to generate the first transaction data, and {see at least fig2, rc206, [0042] parking metadata (reads on monitoring record)}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “However, such disclosure does not reasonably disclose or suggest the processing device generates the first transaction data, triggered by reception of the generation request from the holder terminal,”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Krishnamoorty discloses: wherein the processing device generates the first transaction data, triggered by reception of the generation request from the holder terminal. {see at least fig2, rc202-rc206, [0040]-[0042] transmitting parking data (reads on transaction data)}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Even if one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the cited references in the manner asserted by the Office (Office Action at p. 9), they would not arrive at the claimed subject matter of amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
"It must be presumed that the artisan knows something about the art apart from what the references disclose. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962). The problem cannot be approached on the basis that artisans would only know what they read in references; such artisans must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose. In re Jacoby. Also, the conclusion of obviousness may be made from common knowledge and common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint of suggestion a particular reference. In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). And, every reference relies to some extent on knowledge or persons skilled in the art to complement that which is disclosed therein. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, USPQ 12 (CCPA 1977)."
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698