DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/01/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Priority
The application is filed on 07/01/2024 and therefore the effective filing date of the
application is 07/01/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea including mathematical calculations. The independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recites“…receive a request to add data to a distributed ledger from a user; solve one or more algorithmic problems using the “N” - qubit processor; receive a solution to the one or more algorithmic problems; determine that the solution is correct….when the solution is correct and compensation is received from the user, record the data on the distributed ledger”.
The limitation of solving one or more algorithmic problems and receiving a solution to the one or more algorithmic problems, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operation but for the recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical function/operation then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites – “…wherein: the one or more algorithmic problems cannot be solved using the standard processor; and “N” is a number between two and one thousand” such that it amounts no more than mere mathematical formula to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “transmit one or more fungible tokens to the user; receive compensation from the user”, for an implementation of solving one or more algorithmic problems using the “N”-qubit processor; receive a solution to the one or more algorithmic problems; determine that the solution is correct..” in a distributed ledger using quantum computing, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere mathematical formula to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
3. Moreover, dependent claims 2-18 have inherited the deficiencies of their respective parent claim 1 and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected under §101 based on the same rationale as applied to their respective parent claims above.
4. Further, regarding claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims 1-18 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because the claims are directed to a “computer program product” which typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (See MPEP 2111.01).
Independent Claim 1 recites “a distributed ledger computer program product, the computer program product comprising executable instructions, the executable instructions when executed by a computer system that comprises a standard processor and an “N”-qubit processor. Pending claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 3 19 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product (which may include machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (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. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
The Examiner suggests that a claim drawn to such a computer program product that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim [or any similar limitations such as "computer usable memory", or "computer usable storage memory", or "computer readable memory", or "computer readable device", (i.e. any variations thereof, where "media" or "medium" is replaced by "device" or "memory") or adding "wherein the medium is not a signal"]. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentqv Galleiy, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
5. Claims 2-18 are also rejected under 101 because they inherit the deficiencies of the base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. (US 20230214925 A1, hereinafter, Cella) in view of Acuna (US 20200250607 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cella discloses a distributed ledger computer program product, the computer program product comprising executable instructions, the executable instructions when executed by a computer system that comprises a standard processor and an “N”-qubit processor (Para 3935: a quantum control system for implementing the fundamental operations on each of the qubits in the quantum register and a control processor for coordinating the operations required):
receive a request to add data to a distributed ledger from a user (Para 0094: receive a transaction request initiated by a user device associated with a user of the plurality of users, the transaction request requesting a transaction to be executed by the wallet system and having a set of attributes corresponding to the transaction … When the transaction is a trustless transaction performed on a distributed ledger …. Para. 0095: … the wallet system generates a transaction record and stores the transaction record on a second distributed ledger.);
solve one or more algorithmic problems using the “N”-qubit processor (Para 1467, 1451, 2094: configuring time sequences of processing, such as reflecting patterns, processing sensory information to recognize situation/context/objects, solving a logic puzzle, and following an algorithm wherein a different neural network is sequenced, set in parallel, linked by conditional logic to achieve a solution that automates the process…wherein specialized algorithms are optimized for problem to be solved… wherein computation is performed by manipulating qubits with quantum logic gates);
receive a solution to the one or more algorithmic problems (Para 2557, 2731: the defect classification data is used by the machine learning algorithm to determine a set or sequence of process control parameter adjustments that will implement a corrective action.. wherein proof of work algorithms require the nodes to perform a series of calculations to solve a cryptographic puzzle);
determine that the solution is correct (Para 1082, 2668, 1198: when a predefined set of conditions is met, then a smart contract action is triggered… determining whether the outcome has been produced correctly.. with validating with PoW (proof of work), nodes solves a problem until the solution satisfies a target and ensuring correct answers);
transmit one or more fungible tokens to the user (Para 2754, 3136, 3810, 1082, 1020, 3481: transferring a right token/rewards (such as NFTs, fungible tokens, or others) to the user);
[receive compensation from the user; when the solution is correct and compensation is received from the user] (Para 3251, 1197-1198: an insurer allows a partial premium payment based on the delivery by the insured…associated with workman's compensation policy wherein validating with PoW (proof-of-work), nodes try to solve the block by making incremental changes to one variable until the solution satisfies a network-wide target ensuring correct answers),
record the data on the distributed ledger (para 1202, 1212: nodes come to an agreement on data that are written to the distributed ledge); and
propagate the data to every computer system running the distributed ledger (Para 1104, 2015, 1146: determine a solution to the new block . If a valid solution is determined, the solver node transmits a proof of work to the other nodes in the ledger network, and the other nodes attempts to validate the proof of work);
wherein: the one or more algorithmic problems cannot be solved using the standard processor (Para 0418, 1200: a list of transactions are not be considered a ledger if it cannot be trusted or verified, and/or if it is based on inconsistent data….. wherein validator is chosen randomly in a way that the same validator cannot validate two blocks consecutively); and
“N” is a number between two and one thousand (Para 2572, 2593: external are numerical values depending upon the input dataset which may include tens, hundreds, thousands, or more inputs).
Cella does not explicitly state but Acuna from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein receive compensation from the user; when the solution is correct and compensation is received from the user (Acuna, Para 0018: crediting the user with a compensation value ….thus, to correct attribution of compensated work unit data to the worker, or to another worker, where warranted by the results of the audit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein receive compensation from the user; when the solution is correct and compensation is received from the user as taught by Acuna in the teachings of Cella in order to credit the user with a compensation value of for completion of the work unit in response to verifying that an aggregation of the portions matches a threshold requirement for indication of completion of work unit (Acuna, Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 1 wherein the one or more algorithmic problems cannot be solved using the standard processor within a pre-determined length of time (Cella, Para 2459, 3593: a monitoring ancillary service monitors for a critical change in statistics such as a decrease greater than 10% across units of time (e.g., month-over-month, week-over-week, and the like) in requests for smart contract integration services).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 2 wherein the pre-determined time is one year (Cella Para 1130: a smart contract limit a manufacturer's liability for defects to a period (e.g., ninety days, one year, or the like) wherein sensor data may indicate whether a defect was manifested or not during the base warranty period and automatically determine whether a warranty claim asserted after the period is valid).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 2 wherein the pre-determined length of time is variable (Cella Para 1130: a smart contract limit a manufacturer's liability for defects to a period (e.g., ninety days, one year, or the like) wherein sensor data may indicate whether a defect was manifested or not during the base warranty period and automatically determine whether a warranty claim asserted after the period is valid).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 1 wherein the distributed ledger is a blockchain (Cella Para 0110: creating a distributed ledger, the distributed ledger being based on a blockchain; storing the processed data via the distributed ledger, the processed data being stored via one or more blocks of the distributed ledger).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 5 wherein the pre-determined length of time is varied by one or more AI/ML algorithms (Cella Para 0405, 0473: the response time of information gathering, inter-party communications, and determinations is made by algorithms, machine learning components, and/or artificial intelligence components of the service).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 1 wherein the one or more algorithmic problems are adjusted after an analysis of a length of time the distributed ledger is active (Cella Para 0678: machine learning model is defined via one or more supervised learning algorithms such as active learning, statistical classification, regression analysis, and similarity learning).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 8 wherein the length of time is one week (Cella, Para 2459, 3593: a monitoring ancillary service monitors for a critical change in statistics such as a decrease greater than 10% across units of time (e.g., month-over-month, week-over-week, and the like) in requests for smart contract integration services).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 8 wherein the analysis analyzes the number of fungible tokens transmitted during the length of time (Cella Para 1164, 1166, 2459: knowledge distribution system input a tokenized instance of the digital knowledge as a trigger to the event contract…thereby creating a fungible record of tokenized knowledge).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 10 wherein when the analysis determines that too many fungible tokens were transmitted, the one or more algorithmic problems are made more difficult to solve (Cella Para 0418, 1200: a list of transactions are not be considered a ledger if it cannot be trusted or verified, and/or if it is based on inconsistent data….. wherein validator is chosen randomly in a way that the same validator cannot validate two blocks consecutively).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 1 wherein the compensation is a portion of the one or more fungible tokens (Cella Para 1166, 1164: knowledge token is a non-fungible token and has at least a unique identifier to signify an ownership of the asset. the NFT can represent any percentage of the ownership rights associated with the NFT which is specified by the knowledge provider in the smart contract).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 1 wherein the compensation is one of the one or more fungible tokens (Cella Para 1166, 1164 and Acuna, Para 0018: crediting the user with a compensation value ….thus, to correct attribution of compensated work unit data to the worker, or to another worker, where warranted by the results of the audit).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 1 wherein the one or more fungible tokens are stored in a digital wallet belonging to the user (Cella Para 1080, 1089: the knowledge distribution system is configured to track access rights and/or ownership rights of one or more of the currency tokens, such as by logging contents and/or balances of digital wallets of users).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 1 wherein one of the one or more fungible tokens is an authentication token (Cella Para 3265: providing intermediary services (e.g., escrow services for a physical transaction, authentication services, etc.); generating a digital means (e.g., a token or a transactional record) to indicate that a non-digital asset transaction has occurred).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Cella and Acuna discloses the distributed ledger computer program product of claim 1 wherein the distributed ledger is encrypted with a quantum-resistant encryption (Cella Para 1933: perform quantum computations. Quantum computers may be configured to solve certain computational problems, such as integer factorization (which underlies RSA encryption)).
Regarding claim 19; Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20; Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale (Furthermore, See Para 1467, 1197 of Cella: proof of work algorithms require the nodes to perform a series of calculations to solve a cryptographic puzzle. For instance, in order to validate a pending data record, the nodes are required to calculate a hash via a hash algorithm (e.g., SHA256) that satisfies certain conditions).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 4, 16, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
12. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for placing claims 4, 16, and 18 under allowable subject matters:
The limitation of dependent claims 4, 16, and 18 are allowed and the corresponding dependent claims including respective and any intervening claims are not disclosed by the any of the prior art of record. For example, the limitations in claim 4 including the intervening claims recites “..distributed ledger computer program product of claim 1 wherein the one or more algorithmic problems are selected from a set of algorithmic problems defined as Q-QS; wherein: Q is a universe of algorithmic problems solvable by the “N”-qubit processor; and QS is a subset of Q solvable by the standard processor and the “N”-qubit processor..” which are not are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
The allowable subject matters in above dependent claims are novel and non-obvious in scope over the prior art of record as the prior-art references fail to teach each and every features of the aforesaid dependent claim(s) including the limitations set forth above.
In view of the foregoing, the scope of claimed subject matters renders the invention patentably distinct as none of the prior art of record, either taken by itself or in any combination, would have anticipated or made obvious the invention of the present application at or before the time it was filed.
Furthermore, the Examiner performed updated search which does not yield other specific references that reasonably, either alone or in combination, would result a proper rejection of all the claimed features presented in each of the dependent claims 4, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C 102 or 35 U.S.C.103 with proper motivation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bolt et al. (US 12456079 B2) discloses a quantum computing service provides a quantum algorithm development kit that enables a customer to define a quantum task, a quantum algorithm, or a quantum circuit using an intermediate representation.
Shields (US 11868846 B1) discloses comparative rejection sampling technique that selects a bound set of possible execution run results for a process to be simulated, such as a quantum circuit, for each possible execution run result a modeled probability of a state associated with the possible execution run result is determined.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHFUZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7638. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 571-272-8878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHFUZUR RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498