Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Amendment filed on January 16, 2026.
Claims 9-14 are added.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are examined.
This Office Action is given Paper No. 20260427 for references purposes only.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 8, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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.
Claim 13 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “the information disclosure management server.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this term. For purposes of applying the prior art only, Examiner will interpret as “an information disclosure management server.”
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 1-14 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.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite an abstract idea of determining whether to broadcast data when a condition is satisfied, which is a mental process (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
Claim 5, representative of claims 1 and 6, includes the following limitations:
Receiving data to be broadcast from a first user, wherein the data is off-chain;
Approving for a broadcast transmission of the data from one or more second users;
Determining, in response to a disclosure request received from a third user, whether the one or more second users who approved the broadcast transmission satisfy a predetermined condition;
Broadcasting the data when the predetermined condition is satisfied.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim limitations recite the following additional elements that are beyond the judicial exception:
A blockchain;
Non-transitory computer-readable medium;
One or more processors.
These additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
They generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
They add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim limitations do not recite additional elements, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional element of “a blockchain” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional element of “a blockchain” is re-evaluated to determine whether it constitutes significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional element of “a blockchain” is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 and MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, “a blockchain” merely limits the claims to the computer field. See FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 and MPEP 2106.05(h).
As discussed with respect to step 2A prong 2 above, the additional elements of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” are mere instructions to apply an exception, and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
According to the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is mere instructions to apply an exception under step 2A should be re-evaluated at step 2B. Thus, the additional elements of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” are re-evaluated to determine whether they constitute significantly more. Examiner finds that the additional elements of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors” are simply the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity and do not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 and MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, the additional elements only provide a result-oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to “apply it”. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, when considering all the additional claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, Examiner finds that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
The dependent claims fail to cure this deficiency and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 2 recites requesting the third user to affix a signature to the data and receiving the data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated). See Electric Power Group, and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 3 and 7 recite the first user, the one or more second users, and the third user are identical, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 8 recite the one or more second users and the third user are identical, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites the approval for transmission is completed before the data is broadcast, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites the determination of whether the condition is satisfied is performed after the disclosure request is received, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites the data is stored in a storage unit, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the data is not broadcast when the condition is not satisfied, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites whether the condition is satisfied is based on information stored in a server, which is merely describing data and further defining the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamasni et al. (US 2019/0058595) in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0119807).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 14
Hamasni discloses:
a first terminal (client computing system, see [0064]) to be operated by a first user (client, see figure 1B);
one or more second terminals (branch manager’s computing device, see [0066]) to be operated by one or more second users (branch manager, see figure 1B);
a third terminal (trusted individual computing system, see [0063]) to be operated by a third user (approving authority, see figure 1B); and
receive data (client information, see [0065]) to be broadcast to a blockchain (distributed ledger, see [0065]), wherein the data is off-chain data (e.g. driver’s license, see [0081]) prior to being broadcast to the blockchain (registered as a data object, see [0065]) from the first user (client, see [0064]);
receive approval (digital signature, see [0066]) for broadcast transmission of the data from the one or more second users (branch manager, see [0066]); and
determine in response to a disclosure request (verification of information data sets, see [0068]) received from the third user (trusted individual, see [0068]), whether the one or more second users who have approved the broadcast transmission satisfy a predetermined condition (e.g. specific sequence of digital signatures, see [0069]), and
broadcast the data to the blockchain when the predetermined condition is satisfied (block is stored on the distributed ledger, see [0070]).
Hamasni does not explicitly disclose:
an information disclosure management device comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer, cause the information disclosure management device to.
Chen teaches:
an information disclosure management device comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium (storage medium, see [0256]) containing executable instructions (instructions, see [0256]) that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer, cause the information disclosure management device to.
Hamasni discloses a first terminal, a second terminal, a third terminal, receiving data to be broadcast, receiving approval, determining whether a condition is satisfied, and broadcasting the data. Hamasni does not disclose a computer-readable medium containing instructions, but Chen does. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the platform for generating authenticated data objects of Hamasni with the computer-readable medium containing instructions of Chen because 1) a need exists for generating authenticated data objects used for securely establishing identity or veracity of an individual (see Hamasni [0002]); and 2) a need exists for ensuring that blockchain networks are secure (see Chen [0002]). Having a computer-readable medium containing instructions allows for use of blockchain networks.
Claim 2
Furthermore, Hamasni discloses:
request the third user to affix a signature (digital signature, see [0073]) to the data, and receive the data to which the signature has been affixed from the third user.
Claims 3, 7
Furthermore, Hamasni discloses:
the first user, the one or more second users, and the third user are identical to each other (trusted individuals may be bank employees, see [0113, 0147]).
Claims 4, 8
Furthermore, Hamasni discloses:
the one or more second users and the third user are identical to each other (trusted individual may be a branch manager or other bank employee, see [0102]).
Claim 9
Furthermore, Hamasni discloses:
the approval for broadcast transmission of the data from the one or more second users (immutable record of digital signature, see [0086]) is completed before the data is broadcast to the blockchain (needs verification by individual with reviewer credentials, see [0086]).
Claim 10
Furthermore, Hamasni discloses:
the determination of whether the predetermined condition is satisfied (validate specific signatures, see [0090]) is performed after receiving the disclosure request from the third user (university receives request for transcript, see [0090]).
Claim 11
Furthermore, Hamasni discloses:
the data is stored in a storage unit of an information disclosure management server (server interconnects to backend system, see [0093, 0151]) before being broadcast to the blockchain.
Claim 12
Furthermore, Chen teaches:
the data is not broadcast to the blockchain when the predetermined condition is not satisfied (e.g. not exceeded maximum deposit amount, see [0195]).
Claim 13
Furthermore, Hamasni discloses:
the determination of whether the predetermined condition is satisfied is based on approval information and disclosure rule information (consecutive approval chain, see [0147]) stored in the information disclosure management server (server interconnects to backend system, see [0093, 0151]).
Response to Arguments
101 arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates into a practical application because there is a specific sequence that governs how and when off-chain data is transmitted to the blockchain. Additionally, Applicant argues having off-chain data, approval processing, responding to a request, and conditionally broadcasting data is significantly more.
Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention recites the abstract idea of determining whether to broadcast data when a condition is satisfied, which is a mental process. The additional element of “a blockchain” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept at step 2B.
103 arguments
Applicant argues that Hamasni does not disclose maintaining data off-chain prior to broadcasting to a blockchain.
Please see revised rejection above. Hamasni discloses the data is off-chain data (e.g. driver’s license, see [0081]) before being broadcast to a blockchain.
Claim Interpretation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure (see attached form PTO-892).
Li (US 2018/0276668) discloses a method and apparatus for consensus verification.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to Chrystina Zelaskiewicz whose telephone number is 571-270-3940. Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
/CHRYSTINA E ZELASKIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights