DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 4/11/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/11/2025.
a. Claims 1-3, 6-10 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, such IDS is being considered by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-6 are directed to a system, claims 7-9 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 10 are directed to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 7, 10) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 7, 10) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A blockchain-based evidence data notarization system for notarizing evidence data based on a blockchain in response to a notarization request for the evidence data from a user
[B] a user terminal for transmitting the evidence data in accordance with the notarization request;
[C] a notary server for receiving the evidence data,
[D] generating a hash value for the evidence data by encrypting the received evidence data, and
[E] transmitting the generated hash value to the user terminal and a notary terminal that performs notarization for the evidence data; and
[F] notary terminal that performs notarization for the evidence data
[G] a communication unit for receiving the evidence data from the user terminal
[H] an encryption unit for generating the hash value by encrypting the evidence data
[I] a cloud interlocking unit for interlocking with a cloud storage so that the evidence data and the hash value are matched and stored in the cloud storage
[J] a blockchain server comprising a signature management unit and for receiving a user signature written on the hash value from the user terminal and the notary terminal, respectively and
[K] receiving a notary signature written on the hash value from the notary terminal,
[L] verifying, by the signature management unit, the received user signature and the received notary signature
[M] generating a smart contract block based on the hash value on which the verified signatures have been written.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 7, 10) recites: generating and transmitting a hash value to the notary terminal ([D], [E]) notarizing and receiving evidence data ([F], [G]); encrypting and interlocking evidence data ([H], [I]); receiving user signature and notary signature ([J], [K]); verifying the signature and generating a smart contract ([L], [M]).
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “verifying, by the signature management unit, the received user signature and the received notary signature,” as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally comparing two signatures. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 7, 10) recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “by the user terminal,” “by the notary server,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “notarizing collected information/ evidence”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL STEPS]
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: transmitting the evidence data ([B]), receiving the evidence data ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than transmitting/receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 7, 10) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 7, 10) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 7, 10 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2, which is representative of dependent claims 8, recites:
[A] a member management unit configured to storing and managing user identification information including at least one of personal information, ID information, facial recognition information, iris information, and fingerprint information.
[B] an encryption unit for generating a hash value by encrypting the evidence data; and
[C] a cloud interlocking unit for interlocking with a cloud storage so that the evidence data and the hash value are matched and stored in the cloud storage.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “notarizing collected information/ evidence”. The elements in this dependent claim are representing a process aimed at: “notarizing collected information/ evidence”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”).
Therefore, dependent claim 2 (which is representative of dependent claims 8) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 3, which is representative of dependent claims 9, recites:
[A] a communication unit for receiving a transaction signature of the user from the user terminal and receiving a transaction signature of the notary from the notary terminal;
[B] a signature management unit for verifying the received transaction signature of the user and transaction signature of the notary and storing the verified transaction signatures;
[C] a smart contract block management unit, upon execution of the transaction, for generating a smart contract block;
[D] a token generating unit for generating a token based on the smart contract block; and
[E] a wallet interlocking unit for interlocking with the electronic wallet to the user through an integrated API so that the token generated by the token generating unit is stored.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “notarizing collected information/ evidence”. The elements in this dependent claim are representing a process aimed at: “notarizing collected information/ evidence”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 (which is representative of dependent claims 9) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
[A] wherein upon reception of a search request for evidence data from the user terminal, the notary server requests the block chain server to confirm whether the smart contract block including the user signature exists.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “notarizing collected information/ evidence”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”).
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
[A] wherein upon reception of a signal indicating that the smart contract block including the user signature from the blockchain server exists, the notary server transmits the hash value of the user's notarized evidence data stored in the cloud from the cloud interlocking unit to the user terminal.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “notarizing collected information/ evidence”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites:
[A] wherein the user terminal transmits the hash value of the notarized evidence to an evidence data requesting agency terminal.
[B] wherein the evidence data requesting agency terminal is an investigative agency or a court.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “notarizing collected information/ evidence”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“notarizing collected information/ evidence”).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 is deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (Possession)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 8 are rejected for reciting the subject matter “manage user identification information” which is not adequately described in the specification, in the drawings or in the original set of claims to satisfy the requirements as described in MPEP 2163.05 V: “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved …” Further "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. "Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement).”
In the instant situation, the application specification attempts to describe the subject matter “manage user identification information”. However, no further information, like calculation method or algorithm is provided; i.e. HOW the function is performed. In addition, the specification verbally recites (ipsis verbis) the language of the claim. While the specification discloses the function, it discloses neither the necessary structure, nor the necessary algorithm to perform the function, i.e. HOW the calculation is performed. Examiner points out that the offending term is “manage(-ing)” because the specification does not disclose what operation(s) “manage(-ing)” entails.
The question is, given the disclosure, would a POSITA conclude that the inventor was in possession of the subject matter “manage user identification information” in order to cause a system to perform the functions? The answer is clearly “no.” It looks as if the invention recites subject matter that have neither structure nor algorithm.
Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For examination purpose, Examiner will interpret “manage user identification information” as any type of calculation, which is what the prior art of record discloses. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalkias (US 2019/0319798), in view of Kemp (US 2004/0024775).
Regarding Claims 1, 7, 10: Chalkias discloses: A blockchain-based evidence data notarization system for notarizing evidence data based on a blockchain in response to a notarization request for the evidence data from a user comprising: {see at least fig15, [0095] notary for distributed ledger}
a user terminal for
transmitting the evidence data in accordance with the notarization request;
a notary server for {see at least [0008] transaction submitted to notary}
receiving the evidence data, {see at least [0008] transaction submitted to notary (reads implicitly on receiving}
generating a hash value for the evidence data by encrypting the received evidence data, {see at least [0003] generating a hash value}
and
transmitting the generated hash value to
an encryption unit for
generating the hash value by encrypting the evidence data, {see at least [0040]-[0045] generating hashes}
and a cloud interlocking unit for
interlocking with a cloud storage so that the evidence data and the hash value are matched and stored in the cloud storage; and {see at least [0078]-[0079] matching values (e.g., evidence data and hash value) and storing it (reads on interlocking; [0124]. Chalkias does not explicitly disclose a “cloud interlocking unit. However, the difference between the instant application and the prior art is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the recited steps. The steps of the claim would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not further limit the scope of the claim and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at filing time utilize cloud interlocking unit, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the cloud interlocking unit does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.}
a blockchain server for
comprising a signature management unit and {see at least fig6, [0085] signature management}
receiving a user signature written on the hash value from the user terminal and the notary terminal, respectively and {see at least [0004] signature and name; cryptographic one-way hash of the combination}
receiving notary signature written on the hash value from the notary terminal, {see at least fig15, rc1521, [0075] notary generates a signature and stores it with the block (reads on receiving the signature)}
verifying, by the blockchain server, the user signature and the notary signature; {see at least [0040]-[0044], [0046]-[0048] signature is verified}
generating a smart contract block based on the hash value on which the verified signatures have been written. {see at least [0006] smart contact with the hash for blockchain recording; [0075] signature stored on block (reads on written signature)}
Chalkias does not disclose, however, Kemp discloses:
… and a user terminal … {see at least [0054] user of a terminal}
and comprising a communication unit for
receiving the evidence data from the user terminal, {see at least [0054] data related to topics}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Chalkias to include the elements of Kemp. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide a user with means for inputting data and commands. In the instant case, Chalkias evidently discloses a blockchain notarization system. Kemp is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of a user terminal in the same or similar context. Since both a blockchain notarization system, as well as a user terminal are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Chalkias, as well as Kemp would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Chalkias / Kemp.
Regarding Claims 2, 8: Chalkias, Kemp discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 7. Chalkias further discloses: wherein the notary server comprises:
a member management unit configured to
storing and managing user identification information including at least one of personal information, ID information, facial recognition information, iris information, and fingerprint information. {see at least [0004] biometric (e.g., fingerprint)}
generating a hash value by encrypting the evidence data; and
a cloud interlocking unit for {see at least [0003] generating old hash, new hash}
interlocking with a cloud storage so that the evidence data and the hash value are matched and stored in the cloud storage. {see at least [0003] storing (reads on interlocking) data and the hash value}
Regarding Claims 3, 9: Chalkias, Kemp discloses the limitations of Claims 2, 8. Chalkias further discloses: wherein the blockchain server comprises:
a communication unit for
receiving a transaction signature of the user from the user terminal and {see at least [0005] transaction signature form party (reads on user) terminal}
receiving a transaction signature of the notary from the notary terminal;
a smart contract block management unit, upon execution of the transaction, for
generating a smart contract block; {see at least [0006] smart contact with the hash for blockchain recording}
a token generating unit for
generating a token based on the smart contract block; and {see at least [0006] token from smart contract}
a wallet interlocking unit for
interlocking with an electronic wallet to the user through an integrated application programming interface (API) so that the token generated by the token generating unit is stored. {see at least [0003]-[0004] token stored (reads on interlocking) in nodes. The claim element “through an integrated API” is given no patentable weight because it is not directed to the subject of the claim.}
Regarding Claim 4: Chalkias, Kemp discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Chalkias further discloses: wherein upon reception of a search request for evidence data from the user terminal, the notary server requests the block chain server to
confirm whether the smart contract block including the user signature exists. {see at least [0074] block with user signature validated (reads on existence proof)}
Regarding Claim 5: Chalkias, Kemp discloses the limitations of Claim 4. Chalkias further discloses: wherein upon reception of a signal indicating that the smart contract block including the user signature from the blockchain server exists, the notary server
transmits the hash value of the user's notarized evidence data stored in the cloud from the cloud interlocking unit to the user terminal. {see at least fig15, [0075] party verifies … (reads on user terminal has access to notarized evidence)}
Regarding Claim 6: Chalkias, Kemp discloses the limitations of Claim 5. Chalkias further discloses: wherein the user terminal
transmits the hash value of the notarized evidence to an evidence data requesting agency terminal. {see at least [0003] display auditing results (reads on agency)}
Kemp further discloses:
wherein the evidence data requesting agency terminal is an investigative agency or a court. {see at least [0035], [0040]-[0043] court decisions, court cases, court opinion (reads on court evidence data)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Chalkias, Kemp to include additional elements of Kemp. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to apply the process to court procedures as well. In the instant case, Chalkias, Kemp evidently discloses a blockchain notarization system. Kemp is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of a court in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200058023 A1 Travizano; Matias et al. Decentralized Data Marketplace - A blockchain-based, decentralized data marketplace is described. The marketplace allows data sellers to sell their data to data buyers in exchange for payments in tokens. The marketplace allows for securely and anonymously selling data in a trusted environment that is also fair to all participants and provides data sellers with the ability to control and monetize their own data (e.g., personal data). A notary with access to “ground truth” data can validate data that is being offered in the marketplace to ensure that it is not falsified or fabricated before it is purchased by a data buyer. The marketplace implements blockchain-based smart contracts that work together, and with cryptographic protocols, to achieve an efficient, decentralized data marketplace where data sellers and data buyers transact directly with one another while remaining anonymous, if desired.
US 20230231725 A1 AMMAR; Bassem et al. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT SIGNATURES - According to a first aspect, there is provided a computer-implemented method of cryptographically linking multiple documents, having multiple electronic signature requirements, via a sequence of blockchain transactions, the method comprising: computing document signature data satisfying a first signature requirement for an existing document, the first signature requirement defined in a blockchain transaction containing or referencing the existing document; wherein the document signature data signs a portion of a linking transaction containing or referencing a supplementary document, the linking transaction comprising an input for validly spending a spendable output of the blockchain transaction, whereby the document signature cryptographically links the supplementary document with the existing document; and wherein the signed portion comprises multiple outputs of the linking transaction; wherein a first of the multiple signed outputs is spendable and associated with the existing document, the signed portion defining a second signature requirement for the existing document; and wherein a second of the multiple signed outputs is spendable and associated with the supplementary document, the signed portion defining a signature requirement for the supplementary document.
US 20200005290 A1 Madisetti; Vijay et al. System and Method for Processing Payments in Fiat Currency Using Blockchain and Tethered Tokens - A method of processing a payment including receiving a payment lookup request, identifying a user network account on a blockchain network, sending a payment authorization request to and receiving authorization from a user, transferring ownership of an in-network token responsive to the authorization, sending a debit request to a user financial account, receiving a debit response from the user financial account, sending a credit request to a receiver financial account, and receiving a credit response from the receiver financial account.
US 20190253256 A1 Saab; Tarek I. et al. TRACKING AND VERIFYING AUTHENTICITY OF AN ASSET VIA A DISTRIBUTED LEDGER - A system for verifying the authenticity of an asset is provided. The system generates asset authentication information that includes an asset print and an asset unique identifier. The system generates the asset print based on analysis of an image of the asset. The system generates an asset signature of the asset authentication information. The system then records the asset authentication information and asset signature in a blockchain. To verify the authenticity of a target asset, the system generates a target asset print by analyzing an image of the target asset. The system retrieves from the blockchain the record with asset authentication information with an asset unique identifier that matches the target asset unique identifier. The system then verifies the signature of the record and verifies that the target asset print matches the asset print of the authentication information. If verified, the system indicates that target asset is authentic.
US 20180005186 A1 Hunn; Peter Geoffrey Lerato SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FORMING, STORING, MANAGING, AND EXECUTING CONTRACTS - A system and method for computable contracts that includes a contract management system accessible by involved parties, managing a formation stage of a contract document by obtaining object components, assembling a contract object graph from the object components, and committing the contract object graph to post formation execution; and in an execution environment during a post-formation stage, executing the contract object graph where instances of execution include receiving a contract state update, and appending at least one update object component to the contract object graph in accordance with the contract state update. Variations of the system and method may apply peer-to-peer negotiation and execution, use a cryptographic directed acyclic contract object graph, and/or interface with distributed ledgers.
US 20190361869 A1 Krabbenhöft; Hajo Nils et al. SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR TRACKING CREATION AND MODIFICATION OF DIGITAL RECORDS - Systems and methods for tracking creation and modification of digital records using consensus-driven semi-private blockchain. The present disclosure combines the benefits of Blockchain-like technology with traditional authentication by providing a verifiable immutable link between a low-delay Blockchain-like inscription and a highly trustworthy but delayed confirmation.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “With due respect, Applicant submits that the present invention is directed to a specific technical process for preventing forgery of digital evidence via blockchain notarization, not an abstract mental concept.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
A “specific technical process” is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2016.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The examiner's characterization of the idea as "notarizing collected information/evidence" is misleading: the claims go far beyond a generic idea of "notarization" by requiring encryption, hash generation, signature verification, and smart-contract block creation on a blockchain.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (“receiving a notary signature written on the hash value from the notary terminal; verifying, by the signature management unit, the received user signature and the received notary signature; generating a smart contract block based on the hash value on which the verified signatures have been written”) and in light of the specification (“The present invention relates to a method of controlling a blockchain-based evidence notarization system, a recording medium and system for performing the same, and more particularly, the present invention relates to a method of controlling a block chain-based evidence notarization system for notarizing evidence, and a recording medium and system for performing the same”) the claims are unambiguously directed to the process of “notarizing collected information/ evidence.”
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The specification explains that these steps "prevent any forgery of the evidence data and [prove] the integrity of the evidence data" by storing notarized evidence on the blockchain - a practical technological objective.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claimed process cannot be performed solely in the human mind. It depends on specialized components (e.g. blockchain server, encryption unit) and interactions (smart contracts, wallet interlock) that have no analog in mental processing. Nothing in the claims covers purely mental activities; instead, they require machine-based operations in a particular technological environment (blockchain and cloud).”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action has determined that the process could be performed in the human mind. The claims are directed to this process. All the other components are just recited; they are used as tools for performing the process.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The additional elements integrate the concept into a practical system rather than invoking a mere field-of-use. For instance, the notary server is recited as comprising a communication unit, encryption unit, and cloud interlocking unit.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In particular, storing both the evidence and its hash in a cloud storage is a technical improvement that ensures data integrity, as taught by the spec. (e.g., "a cloud interlocking unit for interlocking with a cloud storage so that the evidence data and the hash value are matched and stored in the cloud storage.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” A method of controlling a blockchain-based evidence notarization system is a BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In combination, the claim limitations produce a new network configuration that improves evidentiary security.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
In the absence of a benchmark, there is no evidence as to the improvement of the evidenciary security.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Step 28 (Significantly More) … Considering the claim as a whole, the combination of elements is "significantly more" than any underlying abstraction.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action has determined at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 7, 10) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 7, 10 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “None of the amended steps is a mere generic computer function; each is tied to improving the notarization system's technical operation. For instance, the cloud interlocking unit ensures evidence/hashes are stored securely off-chain, and the signature verification ensures only valid signatures create the blockchain record.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action does not make such a allegation.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “This ordered combination of steps is not just any use of a computer - it is a specialized application of blockchain and cloud technologies.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
“A specialized application …” is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the amendments. However, the combination Chalkias, Kemp discloses all the amended limitations.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698
Prosecution Insights