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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed January 26, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending in this case. Claims 1 and 12 are currently amended.
Priority
The present application claims priority from Japanese Application No. 2023 -101428, filed on June 21, 2023. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding independent claims, 1 and 12, as currently amended, that the claims recite statutory subject matter.
More specifically, Applicant argues that the claims, as currently amended, are not directed to an abstract ides.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the instant case, the claims, as currently amended, recite delegating management authority when certain conditions are met. More specifically, making only a certain maximum number of delegations to a single entity, which is a commercial or legal interaction/ transaction and is therefore grouped within the 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). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106).
Applicant further argues that the claims, as currently amended, are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the instant case, the distributed ledger and its nodes perform the steps or functions of determining whether a maximum number of delegations of authority for a transaction have been reached and, if not, delegating authority. 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 (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (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, or amount to extra solution activity, 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.
Applicant argues that the claims, as currently amended, teach improvements to the functioning of a computer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims in the instant case, do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (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, or amount to extra solution activity, 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).
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12, as currently amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-15 –
Claims 1-15 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 1-11 are directed to a system or apparatus, while claims 12-15 are direct to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite delegating management authority . Specifically, the claims recite determining whether a maximum number of delegations of authority for a transaction have been reached and, if not, delegating authority, which is described a commercial or legal interaction/ transaction and is therefore grouped within the 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). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106).
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), the additional elements of the claims such as the distributed ledger and its nodes, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the distributed ledger and its nodes perform the steps or functions of determining whether a maximum number of delegations of authority for a transaction have been reached and, if not, delegating authority. 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 (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (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, or amount to extra solution activity, 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 claims 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), the additional element(s) of using distributed ledger and nodes to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of delegating authority for a transaction. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the distributed ledger and its nodes perform the steps or functions of determining whether a maximum number of delegations of authority for a transaction have been reached and, if not, delegating authority. 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 transferring funds. 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 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-15 further describe the abstract idea of delegating authority. 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2020/0311051) in view of Wakabayashi (US 2022/0029813) and further in view of Perticara et al (EP 3 163 486 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12 –
Sato discloses a distributed ledger system comprising la plurality of distributed ledger nodes provided by each of a plurality of organizations, (i.e., participants) (par 9 discloses a network of participants and their nodes taking part in a distributed ledger known as a distributed ledger network; par 14 discloses each node of a plurality of organization nodes participating in a consortium distributed network),
wherein the distributed ledger system provides a distributed ledger network configured by the plurality of distributed ledger nodes, (par 14 discloses each node of plurality of organization nodes participating in a consortium distributed network for automatically executing transactions according to the coded smart contract contents; par 58-59 discloses a plurality of distributed nodes for a plurality of organizations executing transactions based on rules in a smart contract),
the distributed ledger system executes a smart contract according to a transaction received from outside, (par 14 discloses each node of plurality of organization nodes participating in a consortium distributed network for automatically executing transactions according to the coded smart contract contents; par 58-59 discloses a plurality of distributed nodes for a plurality of organizations executing transactions based on rules in a smart contract),
the smart contract records information in a distributed ledger while building a consensus among the plurality of distributed ledger nodes, (par 59, 80 discloses a plurality of distributed nodes for a plurality of organizations executing transactions based on rules in a smart contract and building a consensus among the distributed nodes);
each of the plurality of organizations utilizes the distributed ledger network using management authority granted to each organization, (par 59, 80 discloses a plurality of distributed nodes for a plurality of organizations executing transactions based on rules in a smart contract and building a consensus among the distributed nodes);
Sato does not specifically disclose the distributed ledger system stores an upper limit number of delegations that is an upper limit number of a total number of delegation of management authorities to be delegated to an agent that performs operations related to the distributed ledger network in an entire distributed ledger network.
However, Sato does disclose rules regarding authorities to be delegated to an agent that performs operations related to the distributed ledger network in an entire distributed ledger network. (par 59, 80 discloses a plurality of distributed nodes for a plurality of organizations executing transactions based on rules in a smart contract and building a consensus among the distributed nodes).
Additionally, Perticara discloses wherein the delegation profile rules may include a maximum number of accesses to the electronic service. (par 33, 57, claim8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sato with the rules of Wakabayashi and Perticara in order to prevent too unwieldly of a network.
Sato does not specifically disclose the distributed ledger system manages authority delegation information in the distributed ledger, the authority delegation information including information indicating a total number of delegations that is a current number of delegations of the management authority to the agent in the entire distributed ledger network,
However, Sato does disclose rules regarding authorities to be delegated to an agent that performs operations related to the distributed ledger network in an entire distributed ledger network. (par 59, 80 discloses a plurality of distributed nodes for a plurality of organizations executing transactions based on rules in a smart contract and building a consensus among the distributed nodes).
Wakabayashi discloses limiting the number of delegations or participants. (par 93 limited participants are allowed to join the validation of transaction)
Additionally, Perticara discloses wherein the delegation profile rules may include a maximum number of accesses to the electronic service. (par 33, 57, claim8).
Sato does not specifically disclose the distributed ledger system manages authority delegation information in the distributed ledger, the authority delegation information including information indicating a total number of delegations that is a current number of delegations of the management authority to the agent in the entire distributed ledger network.
However, Sato does disclose rules regarding authorities to be delegated to an agent that performs operations related to the distributed ledger network in an entire distributed ledger network. (par 59, 80 discloses a plurality of distributed nodes for a plurality of organizations executing transactions based on rules in a smart contract and building a consensus among the distributed nodes).
Wakabayashi discloses limiting the number of delegations or participants. (par 93 limited participants are allowed to join the validation of transaction)
Additionally, Perticara discloses wherein the delegation profile rules may include a maximum number of accesses to the electronic service. (par 33, 57, claim8).
Sato does not specifically disclose the distributed ledger node executes a first smart contract when the distributed ledger node receives the transaction requesting delegation of new management authority, and the first smart contract: determines whether or not delegating the new management authority to a specified computing-service-providing entity exceeds the upper limit number of the total number of delegations allowed to be delegated to a single computing-service-providing entity; in a case where the total number of delegations to the specified computing-service providing entity exceeds the upper limit number of delegations, determines to reject the request; and in a case where the total number of delegations is less than the upper limit number of delegations, performs a process of delegating the new management authority and updates the authority delegation information in the distributed ledger.
However, Sato does disclose the distributed ledger node executes a first smart contract when the distributed ledger node receives the transaction requesting delegation of new management authority (par 59, 80 discloses a plurality of distributed nodes for a plurality of organizations executing transactions based on rules in a smart contract), and the first smart contract: determines whether or not various rules are met, if said rules are not met determines to reject the request (par 213, 214); if said rules are met, performs a process of delegating the new management authority (par 213, 214) and updates the authority delegation information in the distributed ledger. (par 221-222)
Wakabayashi discloses limiting the number of delegations or participants. (par 93 limited participants are allowed to join the validation of transaction)
Additionally, Perticara discloses wherein the delegation profile rules may include a maximum number of accesses to the electronic service. (par 33, 57, claim8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sato with the rules of Wakabayashi and Perticara in order to prevent too unwieldly of a network.
Regarding claims 2 and 13 -
Sato discloses a ledger system, comprising:
a client node that is a node of the organization that is capable of communicating with the distributed ledger node; (par 225) and
a certificate authority node that is communicably connected to the client node and functions as a certificate authority, (par 86-87)
wherein the first smart contract, in the process of delegating the new management authority, generates an event instructing the client node to acquire an electronic certificate for the new management authority, (par 86-87) and
the client node:
acquires the instruction by monitoring the event; (par 68)
acquires the electronic certificate from the certificate authority node by transmitting an instruction to issue the electronic certificate to the certificate authority node according to the acquired instruction; (par 86-87) and
transmits, to the distributed ledger node, the transaction notifying that the electronic certificate has been issued, (par 85-87) and
the distributed ledger node, upon receiving the transaction, executes the first smart contract to acquire the notification, and updates the authority delegation information managed in the distributed ledger. (par 221-222)
Regarding claim 3 –
Sato discloses a certificate authority node that is communicably connected to the distributed ledger node and functions as a certificate authority, or the first smart contract functions as a certificate authority, (par 59, 80) and
the first smart contract, in the process of delegating the new management authority, acquires an electronic certificate for the new management authority from the certificate authority node or from the function of the first smart contract as the certificate authority, and updates the authority delegation information managed in the distributed ledger. (par 59, 80, 221-222)
Regarding claim 4 –
Sato discloses a client node that is a node of the organization that is capable of communicating with the distributed ledger node,(par 225)
wherein the transaction requesting the delegation of the new management authority is transmitted from the client node to the distributed ledger node. (par 64)
Regarding claims 5 and 14 –
Sato discloses an agent node that is a node of the agent capable of communicating with the distributed ledger node, (par 225)
wherein the agent node transmits, to the distributed ledger node, the transaction requesting delegation of the management authority necessary for performing the operation as an agent, (par 64)
the distributed ledger node, upon receiving the transaction, executes the first smart contract, (par 221-222) and
the first smart contract:
acquires information indicating whether the organization consents to the delegation of the management authority from the client node; (par 213-214) and
in a case where the information is such that the organization does not consent to the delegation of the management authority, the process of delegating the new management authority is not performed even when the total number of delegations is less than the upper limit number of delegations. (par 213-214)
Regarding claim 6 –
Sato discloses wherein the transaction requesting the delegation of the management authority transmitted by the agent node to the distributed ledger node includes information indicating a type of the management authority to be delegated to the agent (par 64), and
the first smart contract, when delegating the new management authority to the agent, performs a process of delegating the management authority corresponding to the type to the agent. (par 213-214)
Regarding claims 7 and 15 –
Sato discloses wherein rules are set based on a consensus condition for accepting transactions related to execution of the first smart contract managed in the distributed ledger network. (par 59-80)
Wakabayashi discloses limiting the number of delegations or participants. (par 93 limited participants are allowed to join the validation of transaction)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sato with the rule of Wakabayashi in order to prevent too unwieldly of a network.
Regarding claim 8 -
Sato discloses a client node that is a node of the organization that is capable of communicating with the distributed ledger node; (par 225) and
a certificate authority node that is communicably connected to the client node and functions as a certificate authority, (par 86-87)
wherein the first smart contract generates an event that instructs the client node to acquire a delegation status of the management authority of each of the plurality of organizations that utilize the distributed ledger network, or retains periodic confirmation frequency information, (par 86-87) and
the client node, either by acquiring the instruction by monitoring the event and following the acquired instruction, or by periodically referring to the authority delegation information managed by the first smart contract at a frequency described in the confirmation frequency information:
acquires an actual delegation status of the management authority of each of the plurality of organizations from the certificate authority node; (par 221-222) and
transmits the transaction notifying of the acquired delegation status of the management authority to the distributed ledger node, (par 85-87) the distributed ledger node, upon receiving the transaction, executes the first smart contract, and
the first smart contract:
determines whether the new management authority is allowed to be delegated based on the actual delegation status of the management authority; (par 59, 80) and
in a case where the new management authority is determined not to be delegated, does not perform the process of delegating the new management authority. (par 59, 80)
Regarding claim 9 –
Sato discloses wherein the client node, upon acquiring the instruction by monitoring the event, transmits to the certification authority node a revocation request for the management authority granted to the organization of the client node that has transmitted the transaction requesting delegation of the new management authority. (par 68)
Regarding claim 10 –
Sato discloses wherein the distributed ledger node, upon receiving the transaction requesting return of the management authority currently delegated by the organization to the agent, executes the first smart contract, (par 14)
the first smart contract generates an event instructing to revoke the new management authority, (par 68) and
the client node:
acquires the instruction by monitoring the event; (par 68)
transmits a revocation request for the management authority to the certificate authority node according to the acquired instruction; (par 68) and
transmits, to the distributed ledger node, the transaction notifying that the management authority has been revoked, (par 85-87) and
the distributed ledger node, upon receiving the transaction, executes the first smart contract to acquire the notification, and updates the authority delegation information managed in the distributed ledger. (par 221-222)
Regarding claim 11 –
Sato discloses a distributed ledger system, comprising a second smart contract, (par 14, 58-59)
wherein, in a case where the transaction is received for the second smart contract, the second smart contract determines whether the rules are being met, and unless the rules are being met, the second smart contract rejects the received transaction. Par 59, 80)
Wakabayashi discloses limiting the number of delegations or participants. (par 93 limited participants are allowed to join the validation of transaction)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sato with the rule of Wakabayashi in order to prevent too unwieldly of a network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manamohan et al (US 2019/0332702) disclose a system and method of decentralized management of multi-owner nodes using blockchain.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights