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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 12-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are canceled.
Claims 1, 20, and 23 are currently amended.
Claims 1-11, 20, and 23 are currently pending and examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that following claim interpretation:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “upon determining that the resource parameter of the stake resource meets the corresponding sharing condition, writing, by the blockchain node, a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource into a blockchain, adding the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is contingent limitation that is not required to be performed if the resource parameter of the stake resource does not meet the corresponding sharing condition.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “after receiving the access request of the sharing user or a shared user for the stake resource, sending, by the server, the access request to the blockchain node based on the item type carried in the access request, wherein the blockchain node queries a stake platform for a resource status of the stake resource from the blockchain based on the item type carried in the access request, and sends the resource status to the server.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is contingent limitation that is not required to be performed if the access request is not received.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the resource label is viewable and not accessible when the resource status corresponds to a used state” and “wherein the resource label is viewable or accessible when the resource status corresponds to an unused state.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a contingent limitation that is not required to be performed if the access request is not received. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed because the receiving of the access request is not required to be performed.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “upon determining that it is detected that the sharing user or the target user submits an access request for the stake resource, querying a resource status of the stake resource; and displaying a resource label of the stake resource to the sharing user or the target user based on the resource status.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed if the target user does not submit an access request.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “upon determining that it is detected that the sharing user or the target user submits a service request for a recommended item corresponding to the stake resource, querying a resource status of the stake resource; and upon determining that the resource status is an unused state, sending a resource reminder to the sharing user or the target user.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed if the target user does not submit a service request or the resource status is not in an unused state.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “after performing an operation of sending a resource reminder to the sharing user or the target user, further comprising: performing settlement processing based on a settlement request that is based on the stake resource and that is submitted by the sharing user or the target user; and performing, by the stake platform, resource write-off on the stake resource in a case of settlement success.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed if the operation of sending the resource reminder is not performed. Additionally, claim 4 is not required to be performed because it further limits the contingent limitations of claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “wherein the settlement processing comprises: sending a write-off request to the stake platform based on the settlement request, and obtaining a resource settlement amount of the stake resource from the stake platform; and determining an actual settlement amount based on the resource settlement amount and a settlement amount in the settlement request, and performing, by a payment platform, fund transfer based on the actual settlement amount, wherein after the fund transfer succeeds, the payment platform sends a write-off confirmation reminder to the stake platform, so that the stake platform marks the resource status of the stake resource as a used state based on the write-off confirmation reminder.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed if the fund transfer does not succeed. Additionally, claim 5 is not required to be performed because it further limits the contingent limitations of claims 3 and 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “upon determining that the verification succeeds, sending a resource label of a recommended stake resource to the sharing user; and establishing a recommended stake relationship between the sharing user and the recommended stake resource based on a pickup request of the sharing user for the recommended stake resource, wherein the stake resource is a part or a whole of the recommended stake resource, and the recommended stake relationship comprises the stake relationship.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed if the verification does not succeed.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “upon determining that it is detected that the sharing user or the target user submits an access request for the stake resource, querying a resource status of the stake resource to obtain a remaining stake resource whose resource status is an unused state; and displaying a resource label of the stake resource to the sharing user or the target user based on a quantity of remaining stake resources. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed if the target user does not submit an access request.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “when it is detected that the sharing user triggers a sharing control of the stake resource, querying whether the sharing user sets a default shared user; and upon determining that the sharing user sets the default shared user, determining the default shared user as the at least one shared user.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed when the sharing user does not trigger a sharing control of the stake resource or the sharing user does not set a default shared user.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “wherein if an execution result after performing an operation of querying whether the sharing user sets a default shared user is that the sharing user sets no default shared user, the following sub-steps are performed: generating a user selection page based on a friend list of the sharing user; and when it is detected that the sharing user triggers a sharing confirmation control configured on the user selection page, determining that at least one user selected by the sharing user by using the user selection page, and/or at least one user queried and selected by the sharing user by using the user selection page is the at least one shared user.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed if an execution result after performing an operation of querying whether the sharing user sets a default shared user is that the sharing user sets not default shared user is not performed.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “wherein if an execution result after performing a step of determining whether a resource parameter of the stake resource meets a corresponding sharing condition is that the resource parameter of the stake resource does not meet the corresponding sharing condition, the following operations are performed: reading a sharing failure cause based on a determining result; and sending a sharing failure reminder to the sharing user based on the sharing failure cause.” However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are contingent limitation that are not required to be performed if the execution result is not performed or the resource parameter of the stake resource does not meet a corresponding sharing condition.
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 1-11, 20, and 23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the access request" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the access request" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the access request" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-11, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11, 20, and 23 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A stake sharing processing method, comprising:
obtaining, by a server, a sharing request of a sharing user for sharing a stake resource with at least one shared user;
performing, by the server, credibility verification on the at least one shared user based on the sharing request by querying an account platform to verify whether the at least one shared user is a blacklisted user or a graylisted user to obtain a user set of a target user passing the verification;
determining, by a blockchain node invoking a smart contract, whether a resource parameter of the stake resource meets a corresponding sharing condition;
upon determining that the resource parameter of the stake resource meets the corresponding sharing condition, writing, by the blockchain node, a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource into the blockchain, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource;
after receiving an access request of the sharing user or a shared user for the stake resource, sending, by the server, the access request to a blockchain node based on the item type carried in the access request, wherein the blockchain node queries a resource status of the stake resource from the blockchain based on the access request, and sends the resource status to the server; and
displaying, by the server, a resource label to the sharing user or the shared user based on the resource status, wherein the resource label is viewable and not accessible when the resource status corresponds to a used state, and wherein the resource label is viewable or accessible when the resource status corresponds to an unused state.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because stake sharing is related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial interaction because stake sharing is also considered a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., between sharing user and target user). Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-3, 6-9, and 11 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-3, 6-9, and 11 also do not recite any additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, claims 2-3, 6-9, and 11 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 4-5 and 10 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claim 4 recites the additional element “by the stake platform”. Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “to the stake platform”, “from the stake platform”, “by a payment platform”, “the payment platform”, “to the stake platform”, and “the stake platform”. Claim 10 recites the additional element “page”. However, in Steps 2A Prong Two and in Step 2B, these additional elements amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 20 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process). Claim 20 recites the additional elements of “A stake sharing processing device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores executable instructions that in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to”, “by a server,” “by the server,” “platform,” “by a blockchain node invoking a smart contract,” “by the blockchain node,” “into a blockchain,” “by the server,” “by the server,” “to a blockchain node”, “wherein the blockchain node”, “from the blockchain”, “a stake platform”, and “to the server”. However, for the sake reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 23 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 23 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and mental process). Claim 23 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored therein that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the processor to”, “by a server,” “by the server,” “platform,” “by a blockchain node invoking a smart contract,” “by the blockchain node,” “into a blockchain,” “by the server,” “by the server,” “to a blockchain node”, “wherein the blockchain node”, “from the blockchain”, “a stake platform”, and “to the server”. However, for the sake reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search on the claims as currently amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Zhu et a. (US 2018/0204238 A1) discloses the concept of a red envelope being given to a friend as a cash reward after a person uses an electronic coupon shared by the friend. A friend enters a coupon and a coupon sharing page through the “Cards & Offers” entrance of WeChat. The friend shares, to friends of the friend, a coupon sent by a merchant to the friend. After a friend of the friend uses the coupon, a redemption request is sent (the redemption request includes identification information of the friend), so that the friend can be found by using the identification information of the friend, to send a red envelope as a cash reward. Then, a prompt page indicating that a coupon can be received is displayed on the page of WeChat of the friend. The friend clicks a “receive” button to pull an “open red envelope” page. The “open red envelope” page includes an “open” button indicated by A12. The friend clicks the “open” button to enter a page showing details about the red envelope and successfully receives the red envelope. That is, the first user may obtain a corresponding rewarded virtual article after the second user redeems a ticket shared by the first user. The virtual article rewards a red envelope, cash, a coupon, and the like. However, Zhu does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
You et al. (US 2016/0335684 A1) discloses a methods, devices, and systems for sending and receiving virtual goods. However, You also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Wang et al. (US 2016/0350782 A1) discloses a method and system for red envelope reward advertisement for social networking systems. However, Wang also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Xiao (US 2018/0234589 A1) discloses the concept of receiving an image sharing request from a first terminal, encrypting the first image using an encryption key to obtain a second image, sending a preview version of the first image to a second terminal, receiving an image viewing request from the second terminal in response to a user selection of the previous version of the first image at the second terminal and a user-initiated resource transfer from the second user account to the first user account, and returning the second image and a decryption key to the second terminal, wherein the second terminal is configured to restore the first image from the second image using the decryption key. However, Xiao also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Alibaba Group Holding Limited (CN 110148017 B) discloses a method and device for rights issuing using a blockchain, electronic equipment, and storage medium. However, Alibaba Group Holding Limited also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Beijing Jingdogn Shangke Information Technology Co. (CN 111767496 A) discloses the concept of a first user sharing information to a second user but also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Beijing Kingsoft Internet Security Software Co., Ltd. (WO 2020/000766 A1) discloses a blockchain red packet processing method and apparatus , and electronic device and medium. However, Beijing Kingsoft Internet Security Software Co., Ltd. also does not add the target user to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument: “With respect to prong one of step 2A, Applicant asserts that claim 1 as amended does not recite a judicial exception to patent eligibility, such as an abstract idea. Amended independent claim 1 now recites specific computing components, i.e., a server, a blockchain node invoking a smart contract, an account platform, etc., that perform specific inter-component operations: the server queries an account platform to verify blacklisted/graylisted status; the blockchain node invokes a smart contract to evaluate resource parameters; the blockchain node writes stake relationships into the blockchain; the blockchain node queries on-chain resource status and returns it to the server; and the server controls UI display based on the returned on-chain status. These are not operations that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The Examiner characterizes the claim limitations as "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis" and as "mental processes" that include "an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion." Applicant respectfully disagrees. The "obtaining a sharing request" and "performing credibility verification" steps are not mere data collection or mental observation. The specification at paragraph [0032] describes that the server performs credibility verification on the sharing user by checking the user against a blacklist/graylist stored in an account platform, and queries recommended stake resources from a stake platform based on an item identifier of the recommended item. These are server-side operations involving database queries and cross-platform communication that cannot be performed mentally. The "determining, by a blockchain node invoking a smart contract, whether a resource parameter of the stake resource meets a corresponding sharing condition" step is not a mental evaluation. The claim now explicitly recites that this determination is performed by a blockchain node invoking a smart contract, i.e., an on-chain executable process. The specification at paragraphs [0041]-[0042] describes that the resource parameter may include a resource type, a sharing time, a resource status, and/or an amount threshold for the stake resource. The specification further describes at paragraph [0077] that the blockchain node invokes a deployed smart contract to determine whether the resource parameter meets the corresponding sharing condition. Smart contract execution on a blockchain node is inherently a computer-implemented operation that cannot be performed mentally. The "sending, by the server, the access request to the blockchain node based on the item type carried in the access request" step entails programmatic, server-executed routing logic that conditions transmissions on the "item type" embedded within the access request. The specification at paragraph [0032] describes that a recommended stake resource corresponding to a particular campaign is queried from a stake platform based on the item type carried in the access request. This is network-mediated, device-level message routing, and not a mental process.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined above, the limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One, which excludes the additional elements, can be practically performed in the human mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Therefore, the limitations outlined above, that exclude the additional elements, can be practically performed in the human mind.
Argument: “The "blockchain node queries a resource status of the stake resource from the blockchain" and "displaying, by the server, a resource label" steps describe a cross-system workflow: the blockchain node queries on-chain state for authoritative resource status, sends the status to the server, and the server renders a resource label to the user based on the returned status. Further, the amended claim now explicitly recites conditional UI display control: "a resource label whose resource status is a used state is set to be viewable only and not accessible, and a resource label whose resource status is an unused state is set to be viewable or accessible." This is not mere data display, but a programmatic UI access control driven by authoritative on-chain state. The specification at paragraph [0112] describes that a resource label whose resource status is a used state is set to be viewable only and not accessible, and a resource label whose resource status is an unused state is set to be viewable or accessible. This cross-system orchestration with conditional UI display control is inherently computer-implemented.”
in response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvement is entirely in the realm the abstract idea. Unlike the claimed invention in Core Wireless which provided an improvement to user interfaces, here the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Argument: “Additionally, the amended claim now recites "writing, by the blockchain node, a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource into the blockchain", i.e., an on-chain state mutation that is inherently a computer-implemented operation performed by a blockchain node, not a mental process or human activity. The Examiner also characterizes the claims as directed to "a fundamental economic principle or practice because stake sharing is related to commerce and economy" and "a certain method of organizing human activity." Applicant respectfully disagrees. While the claimed method involves stake resources, the claims are not directed to the abstract concept of sharing resources. Rather, the claims recite a specific technical architecture, i.e., a server coordinating with a blockchain node and an account platform, that implements: (1) server-side credibility verification by querying an account platform for blacklist/graylist status; (2) blockchain node smart-contract invocation to evaluate resource parameters; (3) blockchain node writing stake relationships into the blockchain; (4) blockchain node querying on-chain resource status and returning it to the server; and (5) server-controlled conditional UI display based on the returned on-chain resource status. These are specific, device-implemented technical operations, not an abstract economic practice. Therefore, amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One, which excludes the additional elements, can be practically performed in the human mind and are considered certain methods of organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. The additional elements are addressed in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the analysis.
Argument: “The specification at paragraph [0002] describes the technical problem: "it is particularly important to implement greater utilization of stake resources and improve usage of the stake resources." The specification at paragraph [0028] further explains that "a user who picks up a stake resource usually does not use the stake resource, but a user who needs to use the stake resource fails to pick up the related stake resource for various reasons, affecting usage of the stake resource." The specification at paragraph [0066] describes the technical improvement: "the target user is added to a stake relationship between the sharing user and the stake resource, so that the target user obtains a resource permission of the stake resource, thereby improving usage of the stake resource. Amended independent claim 1 now recites that the blockchain node invokes a smart contract to determine whether a resource parameter meets a sharing condition, and upon meeting that condition, writes a stake relationship into the blockchain. The claim further recites that the blockchain node queries the resource status from the blockchain and sends the status to the server, which then controls UI display based on the on-chain resource status. Specifically, setting resource labels whose status is "used" to be viewable only and not accessible, and resource labels whose status is "unused" to be viewable or accessible. This cross-system workflow provides a technical improvement by: (1) leveraging smart-contract execution on the blockchain node to enforce resource parameter evaluation, rather than relying on manual or generic server-side processing; (2) writing stake relationships directly into the blockchain, creating an authoritative, immutable on-chain record; and (3) conditioning UI accessibility on authoritative on-chain resource status, ensuring that the server's display accurately reflects the current blockchain state. The specification at paragraphs [0077], [0078], [0089], and [0112] confirms this technical workflow: the blockchain node invokes a smart contract to evaluate resource parameters ([0077]); writes the stake relationship into the blockchain upon meeting the sharing condition ([0078]); queries the resource status from the blockchain and sends it to the server ([0089]); and the server displays resource labels with conditional accessibility based on the returned resource status ([0112]). This is a specific, system-level improvement to how the server, blockchain node, and stake platform interact, i.e., not merely "applying" a generic computer to an abstract idea.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements are improvements to the abstract idea. Similar to the claimed invention in SAP America Inc. v. InvestPic (Fed. Cir. 2018), the advance here lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.
Argument: “The Examiner asserts that "there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field." Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claimed combination of server-side credibility verification against an account platform, blockchain smart-contract invocation, on-chain stake relationship writing, blockchain-based resource status querying, and conditional UI display based on authoritative on- chain state constitutes a specific technical architecture that improves the functioning of the networked computing system. Unlike generic computer implementations, the claimed method does not merely automate an existing manual process on a generic computer. Rather, it recites a particular arrangement of computing components, i.e., server, blockchain node, and account platform, that interact through defined message flows, smart-contract execution, on-chain state mutations, and conditional UI access control to achieve a technical improvement in resource management and system efficiency, analogous to the technical improvement found in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner has previously asserted that "sending the access request based on item type is similar to filtering, which was determined to be an abstract idea." Applicant respectfully disagrees. Unlike generic filtering of content, the claimed item-type-based routing is analogous to the "particular arrangement of known elements" that provided a "technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering content" in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the particular arrangement includes: the server receiving an access request; the server sending the access request to the blockchain node based on the item type; the blockchain node querying the resource status from the blockchain based on the access request; the blockchain node sending the resource status to the server; and the server displaying a resource label with conditional accessibility (viewable only vs. viewable or accessible) based on the returned on-chain resource status. This ordered sequence of cross-system operations, i.e., involving blockchain queries, on-chain state retrieval, and conditional UI access control, is a specific technical arrangement that goes beyond mere content filtering. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the recitations of amended independent claim 1 are integrated into a practical application and are, therefore, patent-eligible.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, there is no indication from the claims or specification that the claimed invention provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer. Unlike in Enfish in which the claimed invention achieved other benefits over conventional databases such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements that provided improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Second, unlike in Bascom in which the particular arrangement of known elements provided a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering content, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The claims at issue do not require any non-conventional computer, network or display components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces. The claims at issue merely call for the performance of the claimed invention on a set of generic computer components and display devices.
Argument: “With respect to step 2B, the Examiner states that "the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two" and that "the additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s)." Applicant respectfully disagrees. First, amended independent claim 1 recites a specific ordered combination of steps that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional: (1) the server querying an account platform to verify whether a shared user is blacklisted or graylisted; (2) a blockchain node invoking a smart contract to evaluate whether a resource parameter meets a sharing condition; (3) the blockchain node writing a stake relationship into the blockchain; (4) the server sending an access request to the blockchain node based on the item type; (5) the blockchain node querying on-chain resource status and sending it to the server; and (6) the server displaying a resource label with conditional accessibility, i.e., viewable only for used resources, viewable or accessible for unused resources, based on the returned on-chain resource status. Nothing in the Office Action establishes nor takes proper Official Notice that this specific combination is well-understood, routine, or conventional.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Office action does not take the position that any of the additional elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two that would warrant an analysis in Step 2B to determine that the additional element also amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Second, "the relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine" (see p. 16 of BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Argument: “Second, the Examiner's characterization that the claims "merely call for the performance of the claimed invention on a set of generic computer components" overlooks the specific technical roles assigned to each computing component. The server performs credibility verification and UI display; the blockchain node executes smart contracts and queries on-chain state; and the stake platform stores and provides resource status. These are not interchangeable generic components, and each performs a distinct technical function within the claimed architecture. Third, the claimed method provides the specific technological improvement of: (a) leveraging smart-contract execution on the blockchain node for resource parameter evaluation (specification [0077]); (b) creating authoritative, immutable on-chain stake relationships through blockchain writes (specification [0078]); (c) conditioning UI accessibility on authoritative on- chain resource status, ensuring display accuracy (specification [0112]); and (d) improving utilization of stake resources by enabling sharing with verified users (specification [0066]). This ordered combination, taken as a whole, amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea. There is no indication from the claims or specification that the claimed invention provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to blockchain itself, or any other technology or technical field. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as currently amended still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights