DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's RCE submission filed on 6/09/2026 with claims corresponding to 5/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “recording one or more events using the first software agent and the second software agent, each acting within its one or more revocable permissions, to the first micro-ledger and the second micro-ledger” on page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first micro-ledger and the second micro-ledger” in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claims 1 and 2 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 12 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
recording, having one or more permissions to act on behalf of a first party, one or more events as one or more first cryptographically signed events, wherein the one or more permissions include permission to sign a contract on behalf of the first party;
recording, granted one or more permissions to act on behalf of a second party, the one or more events as one or more second cryptographically signed events such that the one or more first cryptographically signed events are joined to the one or more second cryptographically signed events as shared states, wherein the one or more permissions include permission to sign the contract on behalf of the second party;
wherein the one or more events recorded and the one or more events recorded one of comprise and evidence the contract between the first party and the second party;
wherein the contract is human readable, and legally enforceable.
The abstract idea of claim 2 is:
in response to receiving input from a first party configuring, one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the first party, the one or more revocable permissions including signing a contract between the first party and a second party;
in response to receiving input from the second party, configuring one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the second party, the one or more revocable permissions including signing the contract; and
recording one or more events;
wherein the one or more events one of comprise and evidence the contract; and
wherein the contract is human readable, and legally enforceable.
The abstract idea of claim 12 is:
in response to receiving input from a first party configure one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the first party, the one or more revocable permissions including signing a contract between the first party and a second party;
in response to receiving input from the second party, configure one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the second party, the one or more revocable permissions including signing the contract;
record one or more events as one or more first cryptographically signed events;
record the one or more events, acting within its one or more revocable permissions, as one or more second cryptographically signed events that are joined to the one or more first cryptographically signed events as shared states; and
wherein the one or more events one of comprise and evidence the contract; and
wherein the contract is human readable, and legally enforceable.
The abstract idea steps italicized above involves contracting, permission delegation, and legal enforceability, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers commercial activity. This is further supported by paragraph [0048] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps recited above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. Applicant has broadly claimed recording events in a contracting process. Under its BRI, it is covered under Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas, given that they pertain to data gathering. This is further supported by paragraph [0050] of applicant’s specification as filed. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: : micro-ledgers; computer processors; using a first software agent; using a second software agent; in a second micro-ledger of the micro-ledgers; machine readable.
Claim 2 recites the following additional elements: micro-ledgers; computer processors; through one or more computing devices; a first software agent; through the one or more computing devices; a second software agent; using the first software agent and the second software agent, each acting within its one or more revocable permissions, first micro-ledger and the second micro-ledger; machine readable.
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements: micro-ledgers; one or more servers at least intermittently communicatively coupled with one or more computing devices and providing one or more software elements, the one or more software elements configured to be executed by one or more processors to; through one or more computing devices; a first software agent; through the one or more computing devices; a second software agent; using the first software agent acting within its one or more revocable permissions; first micro-ledger of the micro-ledgers; using the second software agent acting within its one or more revocable permissions; to a second micro-ledger of the micro-ledgers; machine readable.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraphs [0033] – [0035] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Regarding claims 3 – 4, 6, 8, 11, 14 – 16, 19, and 20, applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 5 includes further additional elements with additional description: configuring a third software agent with one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the first party. There are no further additional elements to consider beyond those highlighted above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 7 includes further additional elements with additional description: wherein the methods are implemented at least in part using a data-exchange control layer for decentralized applications (dApps). There are no further additional elements to consider beyond those highlighted above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 9 includes further additional elements with additional description: wherein the first software agent and the second software agent write to first and second micro-ledgers using their own unique decentralized identifiers (DIDs), and wherein the DIDs are used to define ownership and access control over the first and second micro-ledgers. There are no further additional elements to consider beyond those highlighted above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 10 includes further additional elements with additional description: wherein one or more DID documents are further used to define ownership and access control over first and second micro-ledgers. There are no further additional elements to consider beyond those highlighted above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 13 includes further additional elements with additional description: wherein the first software agent and the second software agent write to the first and second micro-ledgers using their own unique decentralized identifiers (DIDs). There are no further additional elements to consider beyond those highlighted above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 17 includes further additional elements with additional description: wherein one of the first software agent and the second software agent comprises software code running in a cloud computing environment. There are no further additional elements to consider beyond those highlighted above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Claim 18 includes further additional elements with additional description: wherein one of the first software agent and the second software agent is online in a networked computing environment. There are no further additional elements to consider beyond those highlighted above. This does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and is not significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Treat (US 20190253240) in view of Creighton, IV (US 20170278186).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Treat discloses:
Data contract methods using micro-ledgers, comprising: {The B4C platform is a computer-implemented contract management system that uses blockchain and distributed ledger technology to manage and record contracts (paragraphs 0016, 0035).}
using one or more computer processors: {The platform relies on computing devices, servers, and nodes, each with processors, to execute transactions (paragraph 0032).}
wherein the one or more events recorded using the first software agent and the one or more events recorded using the second software agent one of comprise and evidence the contract between the first party and the second party; {Both sender and receiver events (e.g., signing and approval) are recorded as transactions with corresponding hash codes. These events together comprise and evidence the contract, which becomes finalized once both parties and the notary sign (paragraphs 0067, 0073, 0076).}
wherein the contract is human readable, machine readable, and legally enforceable. {The contracts are described as electronic documents editable by the parties (i.e., human readable), stored as transaction objects with hash codes (i.e., machine readable), and legally enforceable (paragraphs 0019, 0039, 0065).}
Treat does not disclose, however, Creighton, IV, in a similar field of endeavor directed to clearing and settlement process of exchange-traded securities, teaches:
recording , using a first software agent having one or more permissions to act on behalf of a first party, one or more events in a first micro- ledger of the micro-ledgers as one or more first cryptographically signed events, wherein the one or more permissions of the first software agent include permission to sign a contract on behalf of the first party; {The system supports recording cryptographically signed transactions in participant ledgers authorized by brokers, where automated broker software (e.g., the ORS, HSM, and ledger software) signs and authorizes settlement instructions using the broker’s private cryptographic key on behalf of the broker before recording the transactions in the appropriate ledger. (paragraphs 0043, 0045, 0075, 0079, 0083)}
recording, using a second software agent granted one or more permissions to act on behalf of a second party, the one or more events in a second micro-ledger of the micro-ledgers as one or more second cryptographically signed events such that the one or more first cryptographically signed events are joined to the one or more second cryptographically signed events as shared states, wherein the one or more permissions of the second software agent include permission to sign the contract on behalf of the second party; {Automated software operating on behalf of each broker cryptographically signs and records transactions within the broker’s respective lower tier ledger, while propagating ledger updates and cross ledger references that establish a common consensus among the participating ledgers. (paragraphs 0043, 0075 – 0076, 0080, 0083)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the digital records management features of Treat to include the transaction processing features of Creighton, IV, to improve rate processing for cryptographic ledgers. (See Abstract of Creighton, IV).
Claims 2-8, 12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Treat (US 20190253240) in view of Fournier (US 20210166246) in further view of Creighton, IV (US 20170278186).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Treat discloses:
A data contract method using micro-ledgers, comprising: {The B4C platform is a computer-implemented contract management system that uses blockchain and distributed ledger technology to manage and record contracts (paragraphs 0016, 0035).}
using one or more computer processors: {The platform relies on computing devices, servers, and nodes, each with processors, to execute transactions (paragraph 0032).}
wherein the one or more events one of comprise and evidence the contract; and {Both sender and receiver events (e.g., signing and approval) are recorded as transactions with corresponding hash codes. These events together comprise and evidence the contract, which becomes finalized once both parties and the notary sign (paragraphs 0067, 0073, 0076).}
wherein the contract is human readable, machine readable, and legally enforceable. {The contracts are described as electronic documents editable by the parties (i.e., human readable), stored as transaction objects with hash codes (i.e., machine readable), and legally enforceable (paragraphs 0019, 0039, 0065).}
Treat does not disclose, however, Fournier, in a similar field of endeavor directed to permissioned data exchange among parties over the internet, teaches:
in response to receiving input from a first party through one or more computing devices, configuring a first software agent with one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the first party, the one or more permissions including signing a contract between the first party and a second party {Upon first-party input (e.g., clicking “Control Your Data”/login), the system configures the party’s software agent (i.e., JLINC Data Service) with revocable authorization via cryptographically signed Information Sharing Agreements (ISAs). The first party signs and the counterparty countersigns, enabling the agent to act on the party’s behalf, including signing the contract between the parties, and the authorizations can be changed or withdrawn at any time (paragraphs 0031, 0054 – 0056, 0090 – 0092, 0095 – 0098).}
in response to receiving input from the second party through the one or more computing devices, configuring a second software agent with one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the second party, the one or more revocable permissions including signing the contract {The JLINC Solutions Service (i.e., second part), in response to initializing customers or calling the API, is configured to act on that party’s behalf and sign or countersign the ISA. The permissions are revocable via key withdrawal and signed permission control under the ISA (paragraphs 0081 – 0087, 0092, 0097, 0116 – 0119, 0124 – 0125).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the digital records management features of Treat to include the automated electronic data transfer authorization features of Fournier, to provide for an automated way to control the use of data after it has been transmitted from one computing device to another computing device, or from one database to another database, using the Internet or other network. (see paragraph 0006 of Fournier).
The combination of Treat and Fournier does not disclose, however, Creighton, IV, in a similar field of endeavor directed to clearing and settlement process of exchange-traded securities, teaches:
recording one or more events using the first software agent and the second software agent, each acting within its one or more revocable permissions, to the first micro-ledger and the second micro-ledger; {Each broker’s software (e.g., the ORS and ledger software) signs and records transaction events on behalf of the corresponding broker by creating new data blocks on the broker’s respective tertiary ledger, while transactions involving multiple lower tier ledgers are recorded across the relevant ledgers. (paragraphs 0075 – 0076, 0080, 0083)}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Creighton, IV is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Treat further discloses:
wherein the input from the first party comprises a cryptographically signed document, and wherein the input from the second party comprises a cryptographically signed document. {The sender and receiver sign contracts using digital signatures based on asymmetric cryptography (paragraphs 0028, 0069, 0073 – 0074).}
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Fournier further teaches:
in response to receiving input from the first party through the one or more computing devices, revoking one or more or all permissions of the first software agent to act on behalf of the first party. {When the first party acts via the JLINC app, she may change, update, or withdraw previously granted authorizations at any time. She may also instruct deletion and the protocol supports key withdrawal or supersession (i.e., together revoking some or all permissions of her agent, the JLINC Data Service) to act on her behalf) (paragraphs 0032, 0072, 0098, 0120, 0124).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Fournier is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Fournier further teaches:
further comprising configuring a third software agent with one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the first party. {A third software agent (e.g., FinCo’s JLINC Solution Service), upon input from the first party (e.g., Alice) asking FinCo to act “on her behalf”, is configured to operate under permissions based on a cryptographically signed ISA that Alice can change , update, or withdraw at any time (i.e. revocable), enabling that third agent to act for her within those permissions (paragraphs 0031, 0081 – 0087, 0098, 0106, 0124).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Fournier is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Fournier further teaches:
wherein the method does not require the use of blockchain consensus because formation of the contract, data exchange, and data control occur off-chain, and wherein the method further does not require a consensus fee, does not require the use of a data exchange fee, and does not require the use of a crypto wallet. {The system implements off-chain contract formation, data exchange, and data use control via cryptographically signed ISAs between parties and a fourth party Audit Service (i.e., no blockchain consensus). It does not require consensus mechanisms, therefore no consensus fee, crypto token or wallet, or data exchange fees. Interactions occur among databases using keypairs and OAuth2 (paragraphs 0031, 0035, 0074, 0100 – 0104, 0122 – 0124).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Fournier is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Treat further discloses:
wherein the methods are implemented at least in part using a data-exchange control layer for decentralized applications (dApps). {Each node runs a Corda distributed application and invokes flows via remote procedure calls under Corda’s orchestration framework, with timestamping services and a notary service mediating when data is exchanged (i.e. data exchange control layer) (paragraphs 0040 – 0041, 0045, 0047 – 0049).}
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Fournier further teaches:
wherein the methods are configured to operate outside of a Web3 computing environment. {Contracts are cryptographically signed ISAs exchanged between server-side services and databases or APIs (i.e., not smart contracts), communications use OAuth2, and an external Audit Service stores matched receipts. In other words, the methods are configured to operate a Web3 environment (i.e., no consensus layer, tokens, or wallet required) (paragraphs 0031, 0035, 0074, 0100, 0104, 0116, 0122 – 0123).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Fournier is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Treat discloses:
A data contract system using micro-ledgers, comprising: {The B4C platform is a computer-implemented contract management system that uses blockchain and distributed ledger technology to manage and record contracts (paragraphs 0016, 0035).}
one or more servers at least intermittently communicatively coupled with one or more computing devices and providing one or more software elements, the one or more software elements configured to be executed by one or more processors to; {The platform relies on computing devices, servers, and nodes, each with processors, to execute transactions (paragraph 0032). “Implementations of the present disclosure can be realized in digital electronic circuitry, integrated circuitry, specially designed application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), computer hardware, firmware, software, and/or combinations thereof.” (paragraph 0090).}
wherein the one or more events one of comprise and evidence the contract; and {Both sender and receiver events (e.g., signing and approval) are recorded as transactions with corresponding hash codes. These events together comprise and evidence the contract, which becomes finalized once both parties and the notary sign (paragraphs 0067, 0073, 0076).}
wherein the contract is human readable, machine readable, and legally enforceable. {The contracts are described as electronic documents editable by the parties (i.e., human readable), stored as transaction objects with hash codes (i.e., machine readable), and legally enforceable (paragraphs 0019, 0039, 0065).}
Treat does not disclose, however, Fournier, in a similar field of endeavor directed to permissioned data exchange among parties over the internet, teaches:
in response to receiving input from a first party through one or more computing devices, configuring a first software agent with one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the first party, the one or more permissions including signing a contract between the first party and a second party {Upon first-party input (e.g., clicking “Control Your Data”/login), the system configures the party’s software agent (i.e., JLINC Data Service) with revocable authorization via cryptographically signed Information Sharing Agreements (ISAs). The first party signs and the counterparty countersigns, enabling the agent to act on the party’s behalf, including signing the contract between the parties, and the authorizations can be changed or withdrawn at any time (paragraphs 0031, 0054 – 0056, 0090 – 0092, 0095 – 0098).}
in response to receiving input from the second party through the one or more computing devices, configuring a second software agent with one or more revocable permissions to act on behalf of the second party, the one or more revocable permissions including signing the contract {The JLINC Solutions Service (i.e., second part), in response to initializing customers or calling the API, is configured to act on that party’s behalf and sign or countersign the ISA. The permissions are revocable via key withdrawal and signed permission control under the ISA (paragraphs 0081 – 0087, 0092, 0097, 0116 – 0119, 0124 – 0125).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Fournier is the same as set forth previously.
The combination of Treat and Fournier does not disclose, however, Creighton, IV, in a similar field of endeavor directed to clearing and settlement process of exchange-traded securities, teaches:
record one or more events using the first software agent, acting within its one or more revocable permissions, to a first micro-ledger of the micro-ledgers as one or more first cryptographically signed events; {The system supports recording transaction events using broker software (e.g., the ORS and ledger software), which is authorized through the broker’s cryptographic keys to sign transactions, and creating new data blocks on the broker’s tertiary ledger, where each transaction is cryptographically signed. (paragraphs 0043, 0075, 0080, 0083)}
record the one or more events using the second software agent, acting within its one or more revocable permissions, to a second micro-ledger of the micro-ledgers as one or more second cryptographically signed events that are joined to the one or more first cryptographically signed events as shared states; and {The system supports recording the counterparty’s cryptographically signed transactions on its corresponding tertiary ledger, wherein transactions spanning multiple lower tier ledgers include references to the other relevant ledgers and propagated ledger updates establish a common consensus across the participating ledgers. (paragraphs 0075 – 0076, 0083)}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Creighton, IV is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Treat further discloses:
wherein the contract facilitates an automated data exchange between data stores and governs use of the exchanged data. {each party’s node maintains its own database, and CorDapp flows with smart contract logic automatically update and synchronize data between them (paragraphs 0019, 0039 – 0041, 0046, 0067).}
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Treat further discloses:
wherein one of the first software agent and the second software agent comprises software code running in a cloud computing environment. {One enterprise’s node is “cloud-hosted (off-premise) while other nodes may be on-premises (paragraph 0031, 0042, 0045).}
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Fournier further teaches:
wherein one of the first software agent and the second software agent is online in a networked computing environment. {The second agent (e.g., JLINC Solution Service) is implemented as a cloud service exposing APIs that authenticate, exchange capabilities, and process receipts. These functions are executed under a persistently accessible network service (paragraphs 0012, 0081, 0091, 0100, 0116, 0122 – 0124).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Fournier is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Treat further discloses:
wherein the one or more events recorded by the first software agent and the one or more events recorded by the second software agent are immutable, non-repudiable, and auditable. {The platform records each party’s events as transactions on a blockchain, where entries are immutable, non-repudiable, and auditable (i.e., histories are maintained and viewable) (paragraphs 0019, 0028, 0041, 0047 – 0049, 0061).}
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above. Treat further discloses:
wherein the one or more software elements are further configured to write to one or more documents using the first software agent or the second software agent, and wherein the one or more documents one of comprise and evidence the contract. {The B4C platform has parties’ agents create, edit, approve, and sign contract document via GUIs. Those edits are written to the documents and recorded as transactions, with hashes and signatures, evidence the agreement (paragraphs 0017, 0054, 0062, 0069, 0073, 0076).}
Claims 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV, in further view of Patel (US 20210192520).
Claims 9 and 13
Regarding claims 9 and 13 (claim 9 being representative), while the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Patel, in a similar field of endeavor directed to automated and distributed system utilizing a digital ledger, and a data marketplace in which users control access to their data, teaches:
wherein the first software agent and the second software agent write to the first and second micro-ledgers using their own unique decentralized identifiers (DIDs), and wherein the DIDs are used to define ownership and access control over the first and second micro-ledgers. {Users are identified by decentralized identifiers (DIDs), which can be pairwise-unique and reside in micro-ledgers between two or more parties for whom the DID is relevant. Each DID is linked to a DID Document listing public keys and authentication services, which are used to prove ownership of the keys and to provide authentication and access control (paragraphs 0104 – 0106).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV to include the decentralization and data autonomy features of Patel, to improve the security of personal data of consumers and merchants during application processing/onboarding, transactional payment processing/settlements, and in data marketplaces. (see paragraphs 0001 – 0002 of Patel).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Treat, Fournier, Creighton IV, and Patel teaches the limitations set forth above. Patel further teaches:
wherein one or more DID documents are further used to define ownership and access control over the first and second micro- ledgers. {A DID can be linked to a DID Document, which lists associated public keys and links to authentication services. These public keys and services are used to prove ownership of the public keys. Also, private DIDs can reside in micro-ledgers between parties, therefore the DID Documents linked to those DIDs are further used to define ownership and access control over the micro-ledgers (paragraphs 0104, 0106).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Patel is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, while the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Patel, in a similar field of endeavor directed to automated and distributed system utilizing a digital ledger, and a data marketplace in which users control access to their data, teaches:
wherein the first and second micro-ledgers do not require any token, do not require centralization, and do not require authority to be created or shared. {Private DIDs can reside inside micro-ledgers between two or more parties without being recorded on a public ledger. Such DIDs support self-sovereign identity, giving users control over their own identity and data across the network without reliance on a central authority. Private, pairwise-unique DIDs operate directly between parties in micro-ledgers, independent of token-based consensus (paragraphs 0102, 0104 – 0105).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Patel is the same as set forth previously.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV, in further view of Hunn (US 20180365201).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, while the combination of Treat and Fournier teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Hunn, in a similar field of endeavor directed to creating and executing contracts with programmable components, teaches:
wherein the one or more events are recorded using a directed acyclic graph (DAG) data structure. {“[D]ata is stored using a graph data structure. Preferably as a contract object graph (COG) and more preferably in the form of a Merkle directed acyclic graph (DAG).” “The DAG can store the history of the events in a document (e.g., operations, computations and similar that occur as a result of committing a contract to execution).” (paragraphs 0093 – 0094).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Treat, Fournier, and Creighton, IV to include the data structuring and storing features of Hunn, to enable contracts and other commercial documentation to interact with external resources and enable computational functionalities. (see paragraph 0004 of Hunn).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, while the combination of Treat, Fournier, Creighton, IV, and Hunn teaches the limitations set forth above. Hunn further teaches:
wherein the one or more software elements are configured to record the one or more events regardless of which specific DAG data structure is used. {Events can be recorded in a contract object graph (COG) but “more preferably in the form of a Merkle directed acyclic graph (DAG)”. “Alternative approaches to storing relationships and state history may be used (e.g., data stores, databases, message feeds, and file systems such as IPFS).” (paragraph 0093).}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Hunn is the same as set forth previously.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims improve computer functionality by using software agents, cryptographically signed events, and micro-ledgers to address the limitations of conventional distributed ledgers. However, the alleged technological improvements discussed in paragraphs [0041] – [0043] of applicant specification as filed are not recited in the claims. The claims do not recite any specific improvement to consensus mechanisms, cryptographic techniques, ledger architecture, or computer performance. Instead, the claimed micro-ledgers and cryptographic signatures are used as tools to create, sign, and record contracts between parties, rather than to improve the computer technology.
Applicant’s reliance on DDR Holdings, Diehr, and USPTO Eligibility Example 41 is not persuasive. Unlike those examples, the present claims do not recite a specific technological improvement to computer functionality or cryptographic communications. Rather, the claims use known computer components, cryptographic signatures, and micro-ledgers to implement the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. For the reasons set forth above, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding any arguments concerning the dependent claims, Examiner notes that they are predicated on the independent claims, which have been amended. For the same reason as above, these arguments are moot. Examiner directs applicant’s attention to the claim analysis above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights