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 is a non-final office action on application 18/640,816 filed on 4/19/2024.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 provides step(s) in determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any additional elements in the claim must integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If not, the inquiry continues to see whether any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities.
Under Step 1, claims 1-13 are directed to a to a system, claims 14-19 directed to a method, and claim 20 directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Thus, the claimed inventions are directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101. Nevertheless, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, 1st prong:
Claim 14 recites: A method comprising: at a computing device comprising least one processor, a communication interface, and memory:
training, based on historical event processing information, an analysis model, wherein training the analysis model configures the analysis model to output smart contracts based on input of labels corresponding to event processing requests in a metaverse environment;
receiving, from a user device, an event processing request, wherein the event processing request comprises an encrypted request for a change in the metaverse environment;
identifying, based on the event processing request, a label corresponding to the event processing request, wherein the identifying the label comprises using quantum decryption to decrypt the event processing request;
authenticating, based on the label, the event processing request;
identifying, based on information of a market corresponding to the event processing request, one or more parameters of the event processing request, wherein the identifying the one or more parameters comprises using quantum decryption to decrypt at least a portion of the information of the market corresponding to the event processing request;
generating, based on inputting the label into the analysis model and based on the one or more parameters, a complexity score for the event processing request;
generating, based on the complexity score, an indication of whether fulfillment of the event processing request requires a consortium;
based on an indication that fulfillment of the event processing request requires a consortium, generating a plurality of smart contracts corresponding to the event processing request; and
sending, to the user device, the plurality of smart contracts.
(Emphasis added on the additional element(s))(underlined represents newly added expression in the Amendment)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a process for generating a plurality of contracts and sending the generated contracts to a requester of event processing (i.e., request for loan). The claim achieves this by training, based on historical event processing information, an analysis model, wherein training the analysis model configures the analysis model to output contracts based on input of labels corresponding to event processing requests; receiving, from a user, an event processing request; identifying, based on the event processing request, a label corresponding to the event processing request; authenticating, based on the label, the event processing request; identifying, based on information of a market corresponding to the event processing request, one or more parameters of the event processing request; generating, based on inputting the label into the analysis model and based on the one or more parameters, a complexity score for the event processing request; generating, based on the complexity score, an indication of whether fulfillment of the event processing request requires a consortium. Based on the indication of whether fulfillment of the event processing request requires a consortium, i.e., at least two or more parties, the claim the plurality of the contract corresponding to the request is generated. As such, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (i.e., fundamental economic practices or managing relationship or interactions between people). The examiner finds that the training of the analysis model, generating of a complexity score and generating of an indication of whether fulfillment of the event processing request requires a consortium based on the complexity score recites mental processes also.
In the Amendment, the claim has been amended to recite that to further describe event processing requests, i.e., the event processing requests in a metaverse environment. In other word, the object of what the requests pertains. As such, the addition further recites abstract idea.
The claim has been amended to recite that the event processing request comprises an encrypted request for a change in the metaverse, i.e., non-functional descriptive material. Further the recitations of using quantum decryption to decrypt the event processing request and using quantum decryption to decrypt at least a portion of the information of the market corresponding to the event processing request are mental activities and mathematical concepts. Hence, the additions of new claimed limitations further expand on the abstract idea.
As such, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity, i.e., economic practices resulting in recitation of abstract idea.
Under the Step 2A (prong 2), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements in the claim(s), i.e., computing device comprising at least one processor, a communication interface, and a memory, smart contracts, user device, non-transitory computer-readable media, and computing platform, are recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the claim improves upon the computing platform/device comprising one or more processor, a communication interface, and a memory and the user device individually or in combination.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claim(s) as a whole, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept. As explained above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed judicial exception amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the elements improves the functioning of the recited computer component(s) individually or in combination.
Dependent claim 2-13 and 15-19 further expand on the abstract idea.
The additional elements of third party computing device and an optical tone controller program in claims 4 and 16 are recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements individually and in combination does not provide inventive concept.
The additional element of additional computer-readable instructions in claim 13 is recited at a high-level generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and/or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements individually and in combination does not provide inventive concept.
Response to Argument
The applicant asserts on page 13 of the Amendment that the claim is directed towards improving an existing technological field (i.e., metaverse environment).
The example respectfully disagrees. For example, the recitation is training the analysis model configures the analysis model based on input of labels corresponding to event processing requests in a metaverse environment. In other word, the metaverse environment is merely describing the context of input of labels that corresponds to event processing requests in a metaverse environment. The description of the labels, i.e., what the labels may corresponds, does not move to improve upon the metaverse environment.
The applicant further asserts that the features of training and applying the analysis model, using quantum decryption, and generating the smart contract can not be performed in a human mind. The examiner submits that the identified abstract idea is a combination of mental activities and mathematical concept.
The applicant points to [0001] and [0015] and asserts the claim improves the relevant technical field. See pages 15-16.
In response, the examiner finds that the identification of parameters and/or other requirements of a request to determine whether a consortium (a group or association) of entities is needed to satisfy the request and generating contracts between the origin of the request and the entities of the consortium in [0001] is a business centric process, not technical improvement.
Furthermore, the description of protecting data privacy by data-masking is a business centric process, i.e., mitigating risk and/or commercial interaction.
The applicant asserts that “one must conclude that the claimed invention improves technology because it uses machine learning, quantum decryption, and smart contract to perform automated and improved fulfillment of event processing requests requiring consortium while maintaining security through the use of encrypted event processing requests”. See page 17.
The examiner respectfully disagrees in that the machine learning and quantum decryption at high level are mere mental activities and mathematical concept. The additional element of smart contract is mere instructions to perform the abstract idea of contracts, i.e., agreements in the form of contracts or following rules in managing interactions between entities.
In responding to the applicant’s argument of “well-understood, routine, conventional activities …”, the examiner submits that “well-understood, routine, conventional activities …” is not the basis of the rejection.
The applicant asserts that using quantum decryption, smart contracts, complexity scores, analysis mode, and a metaverse environment are meaning limitations that is integrated into a practical application and is significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. See pages 18-19.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons outlined in the 101 section, particularly the claim’s recitation of quantum decryption, complexity score, and an analysis model are combination of mental activities and mathematical concept used to determine whether fulfillment of the request requires group or association of entities. The additional element of smart contract is mere instructions to perform the abstract idea of contracts, i.e., agreements in the form of contracts or following rules in managing interactions between entities. Furthermore, the limitation of “metaverse environment” is merely in the context of input of labels that corresponds to event processing requests in a metaverse environment. The description of the labels, i.e., what the labels may corresponds, does not move to improve upon the metaverse environment.
For these reasons, the 101 rejections are maintained.
112 rejections are withdrawn in light of the applicant’s argument being persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11620702 B2 discloses a lending transaction platform that includes data collection and monitoring services, blockchain services, artificial intelligence services, and smart contract services for handling lending entities and transaction including underwriting lending entities and transactions, marketing a loan to a set of prospective parties, rating a set of loan-related entities, automatically facilitation compliance with at least one of a law, a regulation and a policy that applies to a lending transaction.
US 11620700 B2 discloses a method includes: receiving, from a user, a request for a loan that includes user preference criteria; transmitting, to each of a plurality of prospective lenders, a solicitation for bids for the requested loan, receiving a respective loan bid from each of at least one of the prospective lenders, each respective loan bid including respective bid criteria corresponding to a particular lender; analyzing each received loan bid with respect to the user preference criteria and the respective bid criteria; selecting one loan bid based on a result of the analysis, and transmitting, to the user and to each of the plurality of prospective lenders, a message that notifies a result of the selection. The request for the loan may be received from the user via a blockchain mechanism that is accessible by each prospective lender.
US 20220157323 A1 discloses intelligent training including raw pattern analysis that is used in determining authentication, validation, or authorization information that can be used to identify a given user by their voice alone in services such as loan.
US 20030055778 A1 and US 5995947 A disclose underwriting lending entities by analyzing the lending criteria for the type of loan and determining appropriate lender.
US 10963400 B2 discloses creating of a smart contract based on loan contract.
The cited reference does not disclose the combination of step(s)/function(s) as recited in the independent claim(s).
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 STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached on 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698