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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the claim amendments filed on January 16, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues: Applicant's claims do not recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Prong One).
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 are not directed to an abstract idea. These claims recite features relating to a subscription management for provision of a subscription service for automated driving system, including particular features for whitelisting activation of ADS feature set. Taken together, Applicant's method represents a process that is not merely a method of organizing human activity, as the claims are directed to management and activation of features of an ADS. See Applicant’s arguments page 12.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. As a preliminary matter, the Examiner follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) which is a synthesis of the case law of Alice and its progeny. Additionally, the reasoning for this rejection is the same as was laid out in the Office Action Non-Final Rejection, dated 10/27/2025 (hereinafter, “Office Action”).
Claims recite, deploying, a smart contract identifying data indicative of a user being eligible for one or more subscription options representing various ADS feature sets; adding the whitelisting request transaction to the public blockchain; identifying data indicative of the public key; generating a subscription activation transaction comprising data indicative of the unique address and one or both comprising and pointing to the at least first subscription option; and adding the subscription activation transaction to the private blockchain, the addition whitelisting activation of the ADS feature set of the at least first subscription option, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) because it describes a process for carrying out a commercial interaction between parties that involves communicating data needed to complete a transaction (e.g., subscription activation transaction) to the parties.
Additionally, one or more processors merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04). (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
Applicant further argues that, Applicant's claims recite additional elements that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, particularly when considered under the further guidance provided in the Memorandum. Applicant's claims are directed to a particular implementation for provision of a subscription service for ADS features. As further described in Applicant's Specification, the implementation provides improvement for blockchain-based subscription management of ADS features. (See, e.g., Applicant's Specification at p. 3 1. 17 - p. 8 1. 29). Similar to Ex Parte Desjardins, Applicant's features confer a technological improvement to a technical problem so as to improve the functionality of a subscription management system and thereby the operation of an ADS, and therefore relate to a particular machine and not simply generic computer components. See Applicant’s arguments pages 14-15.
The Examiner however, respectfully disagrees, the claims also fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional claim elements are considered when determining whether the claim recites a practical application, such as a technological improvement, of the abstract idea. However, the claims fail to introduce any such additional elements. Again, deploying, a smart contract identifying data indicative of a user being eligible for one or more subscription options representing various ADS feature sets; adding the whitelisting request transaction to the public blockchain; identifying data indicative of the public key; generating a subscription activation transaction comprising data indicative of the unique address and one or both comprising and pointing to the at least first subscription option; and adding the subscription activation transaction to the private blockchain, the addition whitelisting activation of the ADS feature set of the at least first subscription option are not considered as additional claim elements. Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. And the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, this analysis is the same as was laid out in the Office Action. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims also fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. According to the 2019 PEG, the additional elements, when considered individually and as a combination, are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. However, the claims fail to recite any new additional elements. As noted in the Office Action, the additional elements serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment.
Furthermore, the claims recite, deploying, a smart contract identifying data indicative of a user being eligible for one or more subscription options representing various ADS feature sets; adding the whitelisting request transaction to the public blockchain; identifying data indicative of the public key; generating a subscription activation transaction comprising data indicative of the unique address and one or both comprising and pointing to the at least first subscription option; and adding the subscription activation transaction to the private blockchain, the addition whitelisting activation of the ADS feature set of the at least first subscription option. Thus, it does not appear the recited claims would result in any improvement to the recited technology. Therefore, the claims limitations do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Accordingly, this ground of rejection is maintained. See detail rejection below.
With respect to Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome this ground of claim Interpretation. Accordingly, this ground of claim Interpretation is withdrawn.
With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Applicant s amendments to the claims have overcome this ground of rejection. Accordingly, this ground of rejection is 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, claims 11-19 are directed to a system comprising one or more units implement through one or more processors; in light of the originally-filed specification p. 23, lines 15-30, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of managing subscription. Specifically, the claims recite “deploying on a private blockchain network comprising a set of nodes, a smart contract identifying data indicative of a user being eligible for one or more subscription options representing various ADS feature sets, the user-indicative data comprising a respective unique private key and public key personal to the user; deploying on a public blockchain network supporting minting of Non-fungible tokens, NFTs, and comprising at least one of the set of nodes, a smart contract generating a whitelisting request transaction comprising the unique private and public keys; deploying a smart contract adding the whitelisting request transaction to the public blockchain, the addition whitelisting the unique public key for minting of NFTs on the public blockchain network; deploying on the public blockchain network, a smart contract identifying data indicative of the public key having been included in minting of an NFT on the public blockchain, the NFT one or both comprising and pointing to data indicative of an at least first subscription option out of the one or more subscription options and further comprising a unique address associated with the user derived from the unique public key; deploying on the private blockchain network, a smart contract generating a subscription activation transaction comprising data indicative of the unique address and one or both comprising and pointing to the at least first subscription option; and deploying a smart contract adding the subscription activation transaction to the private blockchain, the addition whitelisting activation of the ADS feature set of the at least first subscription option”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) because it describes a process for carrying out a commercial interaction between parties that involves communicating data needed to complete a transaction (e.g., subscription activation transaction) to the parties. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a or d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as one or more processors merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the one or more processors perform(s) the steps or functions of “deploying on a private blockchain network comprising a set of nodes, a smart contract identifying data indicative of a user being eligible for one or more subscription options representing various ADS feature sets, the user-indicative data comprising a respective unique private key and public key personal to the user; deploying on a public blockchain network supporting minting of Non-fungible tokens, NFTs, and comprising at least one of the set of nodes, a smart contract generating a whitelisting request transaction comprising the unique private and public keys; deploying a smart contract adding the whitelisting request transaction to the public blockchain, the addition whitelisting the unique public key for minting of NFTs on the public blockchain network; deploying on the public blockchain network, a smart contract identifying data indicative of the public key having been included in minting of an NFT on the public blockchain, the NFT one or both comprising and pointing to data indicative of an at least first subscription option out of the one or more subscription options and further comprising a unique address associated with the user derived from the unique public key; deploying on the private blockchain network, a smart contract generating a subscription activation transaction comprising data indicative of the unique address and one or both comprising and pointing to the at least first subscription option; and deploying a smart contract adding the subscription activation transaction to the private blockchain, the addition whitelisting activation of the ADS feature set of the at least first subscription option.” The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using one or more processors to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of managing subscription. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the one or more processors perform(s) the steps or functions of “deploying on a private blockchain network comprising a set of nodes, a smart contract identifying data indicative of a user being eligible for one or more subscription options representing various ADS feature sets, the user-indicative data comprising a respective unique private key and public key personal to the user; deploying on a public blockchain network supporting minting of Non-fungible tokens, NFTs, and comprising at least one of the set of nodes, a smart contract generating a whitelisting request transaction comprising the unique private and public keys; deploying a smart contract adding the whitelisting request transaction to the public blockchain, the addition whitelisting the unique public key for minting of NFTs on the public blockchain network; deploying on the public blockchain network, a smart contract identifying data indicative of the public key having been included in minting of an NFT on the public blockchain, the NFT one or both comprising and pointing to data indicative of an at least first subscription option out of the one or more subscription options and further comprising a unique address associated with the user derived from the unique public key; deploying on the private blockchain network, a smart contract generating a subscription activation transaction comprising data indicative of the unique address and one or both comprising and pointing to the at least first subscription option; and deploying a smart contract adding the subscription activation transaction to the private blockchain, the addition whitelisting activation of the ADS feature set of the at least first subscription option.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of managing subscription. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims
Claims 2 and 12 recite: wherein the set of nodes comprises one or both a service provider node dedicated to an ADS feature provider and a subscriptions-bundling node dedicated to a subscriptions bundling provider.
Claims 3, 7 and 13 recite: wherein the user is associated with an ADS-equipped vehicle connected to the private blockchain network.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the deploying on the public blockchain network a smart contract identifying data indicative of the public key having been included in minting of an NFT one or both comprising and pointing to data indicative of an at least first subscription option out of the one or more subscription options, comprises the one or more subscription options and corresponding required ADS-related vehicle configurations being derivable from a smart contract deployed on the public blockchain network.
Claim 5 and 9 recites: deploying a smart contract on the private blockchain network, defining available ADS features and corresponding required ADS-related vehicle configurations.
Claims 6, 10 and 18 recite: deploying on the private blockchain network, a smart contract generating a user eligibility transaction comprising data indicative of the unique private and public keys; and deploying a smart contract adding the user eligibility transaction to the private blockchain, the addition whitelisting the user for monetary transfer(s) of tokens on the private blockchain for ADS feature set(s) activation.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the deploying on the public blockchain network a smart contract identifying data indicative of the public key having been included in minting of an NFT one or both comprising and pointing to data indicative of an at least first subscription option out of the one or more subscription options, comprises the one or more subscription options and corresponding required ADS-related vehicle configurations being derivable from a smart contract deployed on the public blockchain network.
Claim 14 recites: wherein the one or more subscription options and corresponding required ADS-related vehicle configurations are derivable from a smart contract deployed on the public blockchain network.
Claim 15 recites: wherein the user is associated with an ADS-equipped vehicle connected to the private blockchain network.
Claim 16 recites: wherein the one or more subscription options and corresponding required ADS-related vehicle configurations are derivable from a smart contract deployed on the public blockchain network.
Claim 17 recites: an ADS features defining unit configured to deploy a smart contract on the private blockchain network, defining available ADS features and corresponding required ADS-related vehicle configurations.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the subscription management system is comprised in at least a first node.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further describe the abstract idea of managing subscription. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHED ALI whose telephone number is (571)270-1085. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAHED ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights