DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/13/2026
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13-12, 14, 15, and 20 are amended.
Claims 3, 9, 13 and 19 are previously canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18 and 20 has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the newly amended claims are not abstract as the claims recite versioning, and specifically the digital signing of the data structures represent technical operation on the data structure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the as currently claimed the versioning, and signing of the data structures receiving of the component after the knowledge graph is validated, and acknowledgement confirming that information in the versioned knowledge graph for the component is accurate and complete collecting telemetry concerning an operation of the component, represents mere instruction to apply the excretion to a technical environment. Under 2106.05(f)(1). “Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".”
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1 and 11 are directed to a method, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 1 is addressed.
Claim 1 recites “a payment system” which is a grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic practices” in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Abstract ideas are in bold below.
Claim 1 recites:
for a component of a hardware device, registering a component identification (IDI and billing information within an immutable distributed ledger;
creating a knowledge graph that comprises an aggregator node that corresponds to an aggregator and a component node that corresponds to the component, wherein nodes of the knowledge graph include contractual term data for respective components, and wherein the knowledge graph includes vendor nodes, which identify respective vendors;
validating the knowledge graph by parsing the knowledge graph to determine whether contractual terms are internally consistent and satisfy one or more predetermined constraints;
after validating the knowledge graph, versioning the knowledge graph by performing at least one of the following:
(i) causing each node in the knowledge graph to be digitally signed by each by the knowledge graph, such that the knowledge graph is modified to include a plurality of digital signatures; or, alternatively
(ii) storing the knowledge graph in the immutable distributed ledger and generating a hash of the knowledge graph, wherein the hash is digitally signed by each vendor identified by the knowledge graph;
receiving, from a vendor of the component after the knowledge graph is validated, an acknowledgement confirming that information in the versioned knowledge graph for the component is accurate and complete;
after the acknowledgement is received, collecting telemetry concerning an operation of the component;
associating the telemetry with the versioned knowledge graph such that subsequent processing of the telemetry is performed relative to the versioned knowledge graph; and
using the telemetry in conjunction with the versioned knowledge graph for performing a process concerning the component and/or the operation of the component.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “for a component of a hardware device, registering a component identification (IDI and billing information within an immutable distributed ledger”, “digitally”, “immutable distributed ledger … hash”, “receiving, from a vendor of the component after the knowledge graph is validated, an acknowledgement confirming that information in the versioned knowledge graph for the component is accurate and complete; after the acknowledgement is received, collecting telemetry concerning an operation of the component;” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Furthermore, “receiving, from a vendor of the component after the knowledge graph is validated, an acknowledgement confirming that information in the versioned knowledge graph for the component is accurate and complete” represent the use of computer functions to perform an economic task (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of a payment system.
Hence, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 4 and 14 recites “wherein the aggregator node is associated with an entity that manufactured …, and the aggregator node includes a vendor ID, billing information concerning …, and a device ID.” However, this does no more than describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of “…the device… the hardware device and/or the component…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
Claim 8 and 18 recites the additional elements of “…for the component, that is stored in an immutable distributed ledger that includes state information for one or more other components, and a batch processing of the state information in the immutable distributed ledger is performed,…” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself, and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, 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.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
The prior art does not specifically teach or render obvious:
validating the knowledge graph by parsing the knowledge graph to determine whether contractual terms are internally consistent and satisfy one or more predetermined constraints; receiving, from a vendor of the component after the knowledge graph is validated, an acknowledgement confirming that information in the versioned knowledge graph for the component is accurate and complete; after the acknowledgement is received, collecting telemetry concerning an operation of the component; associating the telemetry with the versioned knowledge graph such that subsequent processing of the telemetry is performed relative to the versioned knowledge graph; and using the telemetry in conjunction with the versioned knowledge graph for performing a process concerning the component and/or the operation of the component.
Chow et al. (US 2017/0046669 A1) Teaches: Automated implementation of provisioned service based on captured sensor
Demtchenko et al (US 11,080,607 A1) Teaches: Data platform for automated pharmaceutical research using knowledge graph
Severion Et al. (EP 4239510 A1) Teaches: Data platform for collaborative verification of certification computing system based on consistency proofs
Dechu et al. (US 2018/0130130 A1) Teaches: Autonomous peer-to-peer energy networks operating on a blockchain.
Sethi et al. (US 2020/0302434 A1) Teaches: Virtual network function services usage tracking using a distributed trust based network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
October 6, 2026
