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
Claims 17-33 have been examined.
Claims 1-16 have been canceled by the Applicant.
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 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instance case, claims 17-24 are directed to a method and claims 25-32 are directed to an electronic device. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite performing an access control which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “agreeing between a first and second party…; broadcasting a first transaction…; creating a second transaction….; broadcasting an unlock transaction….” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for performing agreement between parties, broadcasting a code for storage, creating a second transaction and broadcasting the second transaction for storage, broadcasting unlock transaction after full filling the agreed payment which is a process that deals with commercial or legal interactions because claims are directed to performing an access control. 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, blockchain network, processor, storage, electronic device and interface device, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the blockchain network, processor, storage, electronic device and interface device performs the steps of performing agreement between parties, broadcasting a code for storage, creating a second transaction and broadcasting the second transaction for storage, broadcasting unlock transaction after full filling the agreed payment. 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, 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 elements of blockchain network, processor, storage, electronic device and interface device, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of performing an access control. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, blockchain network, processor, storage, electronic device and interface device perform the steps of performing agreement between parties, broadcasting a code for storage, creating a second transaction and broadcasting the second transaction for storage, broadcasting unlock transaction after full filling the agreed payment. 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 performing an access control. 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.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of performing an access control. Specifically, claims 18-21 and 26-29 further describing first and second transaction which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 22-24 and 30-32 describing actions performed by the first and second party, those actions are part of the abstract idea of an access control. 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 33 is directed to computer readable storage medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of ordinary and customary meaning of readable storage medium. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. (In re Nuitjen, Docket no. 2006-1371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007)(slip. op. at 18)).
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 24-33 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 25 is directed to an electronic device comprising one or more processor and memory stored thereon computer-executable instructions which when executed, configured the one or more processor to perform the method. However, the body of the claim recites method performed by a first party and a second party, for example claim recites “broadcasting a first transaction, by the first party….; creating a second transaction, by the first party…; broadcasting an unlock transaction to the blockchain network…by the first party or second party….; wherein the second party accesses or unlocks the code…” It is unclear to one of the ordinary skills that the “first party” and the “second party” are part of the claimed electronic device or not. (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989), MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B)) which states “Examiners should bear in mind that "[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the method" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 is directed to a computer-readable storge medium comprising computer-executable instructions which when executed, configure a processor to perform a computer-implemented method. However, the body of the claim recites method performed by a first party and a second party, for example claim recites “broadcasting a first transaction, by the first party….; creating a second transaction, by the first party…; broadcasting an unlock transaction to the blockchain network…by the first party or second party….; wherein the second party accesses or unlocks the code…” It is unclear to one of the ordinary skills that the “first party” and the “second party” are part of the claimed computer-readable storage medium or not. (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989), MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B)) which states “Examiners should bear in mind that "[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process”.
Claims 24 and 32 recite “the first party broadcast the unlock transaction”. Claims 17 and 25 from which claims 24 and 32 depend from recite “broadcasting an unlock transaction…by the first party or the second party”. Claims 24 and 32 are unclear to one of the ordinary skills in the art because claims 24 and 32 contradict the claims 17 and 32 respectively in case of second party broadcasting the unlock transaction. (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989), MPEP 2173.02 (III)(B)) which states “Examiners should bear in mind that "[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process”.
Claims 26-32 are also rejected as each depends from claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697