Detailed Action
Acknowledgements
1. This communication is in response to the amended Application No. 18/783,781 filed on 7/25/2024.
2. Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
3. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled by the Applicant.
4. For the purpose of applying prior art, PreGrant Publications will be referred to
using a four digit number within square brackets, e. g. [0001].
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
5. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 24, the scope of the claim is not clear as Applicant recites:
wherein the intermediary server is operated by an intermediary agent that intermediates a transfer of ownership of electricity.
Applicant’s Specification recites:
The smartphone 2c communicates data with the smart meter 3c by short-range wireless technology such as NFC or BLUETOOTH. Further, the smartphone 2c communicates data with the intermediary server 5 via the communication network 100.
Applicant’s claim 21 is directed toward “an apparatus;” therefore, how a “intermediary server” is operated is beyond the scope of the claim. Therefore, the scope of the claim is not clear and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable appraised of the scope of the claim.1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al., (US 2016/0300224) (“Liu”) and in view of Buehl (US 2011/0289537) (“Buehl”).
As to claims 21, 33 and 40:
Liu teaches substantially as claimed:
a communication circuit configured ([0054], [0069], Figure 2-3);
a determination circuit configured ([0039], [0113], Figures 2-3);
transaction information (Abstract, [0007], [0029], [0038], [0060], [0080], [0111], Figure 5);
a transaction processing circuit configured to generate, based on a determination of the determination circuit indicating that the user of the communication device has authority to request to process the first asset information ([0020], [0029], [0039], [0113], Figures 5-6, 8a);
first transaction information according to the information included in the request ([0060], [0080], [0083], [0111], [0120], [0121]);
and store the first transaction information in the memory ([0029], [0049]);
Liu does not expressly teach:
a memory configured to store asset information and…;
…to receive a request from a communication device via a network, wherein the request requests to process first asset information relating to information in the request;
…to determine, in response to the request received by the communication circuit, whether a user of the communication device has authority to request to process the first asset information;
However, Buehl teaches:
a memory configured to store asset information and… ([0041], Figure 1).
…to receive a request from a communication device via a network, wherein the request requests to process first asset information relating to information in the request (Abstract, [0006]-[0007], [0029], [0032], [0034], Figures 2-3);
…to determine, in response to the request received by the communication circuit, whether a user of the communication device has authority to request to process the first asset information ([0006], [0026], [0029]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to execute the processing of a transaction, as taught by Liu to include the features of providing VOD content, as taught by Buehl in order to ensure that only properly authorized user is able to consume content.
As to claim(s) 22 and 34:
Liu teaches substantially as claimed:
the determination circuit is further configured to determine whether the user of the communication device has…([0039], [0113], Figures 2-3); and
the transaction processing circuit generates, based on a determination indicating that the user of the communication device has…, the first transaction information ([0020], [0029], [0039], [0113], Figures 5-6, 8a);
Liu does not expressly teach:
an access right;
However Buehl teaches:
an access right ([0021]-[0026], [0029], [0032], [0035], [0037]-[0039]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to execute the processing of a transaction, as taught by Liu to include the features of providing VOD content, as taught by Buehl in order to ensure that only properly authorized user is able to consume content.
As to claim 23:
Liu teaches:
wherein the communication circuit receives the request from an intermediary server ([0029], Figure 1);
As to claim 24:
Liu teaches:
wherein the intermediary server is operated by an intermediary agent that intermediates a transfer of ownership of electricity ([0029], Figure 1);
As to claim 25:
Liu discloses as discussed above; however, Liu does not expressly teach:
Wherein the information in the request indicates an amount of electricity produced by a power generator, and
the first asset information indicates that a production method of the electricity is one of a production of electricity using a renewable source, a production of electricity using fossil fuels, and a production of electricity using nuclear power.
However Buehl teaches:
Wherein the information in the request (Abstract, [0006]-[0007], [0029], [0032], [0034], Figures 2-3);
The combination of Liu/Buehl discloses as discussed above; however, the combination of Liu/Buehl does not expressly teach:
…indicates an amount of electricity produced by a power generator, and
the first asset information indicates that a production method of the electricity is one of a production of electricity using a renewable source, a production of electricity using fossil fuels, and a production of electricity using nuclear power.
However, the difference between “VOD” content and energy (e.g., electricity, fossil fuels) is an example of non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The prior steps, would be performed regardless of the descriptive material since none of the prior 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 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the requesting of data as taught by LIU/Buehl to include the requesting of electricity, because such request for electricity does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As to claim(s) 26 and 35:
Liu teaches:
where the communication circuit is further configured to transmit a response indicating a processing failure to the communication device, based on a determination of the determination circuit indicating that the user of the communication device does not have authority to request to process the first asset information ([0095], [0097]);
As to claim 27:
Liu teaches:
wherein the memory stores, for each user of a plurality types of users, information indicating whether the user has authority to request to process the asset information ([0029], [0113]);
As to claim(s) 28 and 36:
Liu teaches:
wherein the apparatus is configured to perform distributed processing within… ([0028], [0031]);
The combination of Liu/Buehl discloses as discussed above; however, the combination of Liu/Buehl dos not expressly disclose:
a blockchain network;
The Examiner wishes to point out the “functionality” of a blockchain network is not being imported into the claim; therefore, the difference between cited networks (e.g., LAN, WAN, etc.,) and “blockchain networks” is not functionally involved within the steps recited. The prior steps, would be performed regardless since none of the prior 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 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the communicating within a network (e.g., LAN, WAN etc.,) by LIU/Buehl to include the interaction of a blockchain network, because devices within a network are able to communicate with each other.
As to claim(s) 29 and 37:
Liu teaches:
wherein the communication circuit is configured to transmit the first transaction information to another apparatus of… network (Abstract, [0007], [0028]-[0029], [0054], [0069]);
The combination of Liu/Buehl discloses as discussed above; however, the combination of Liu/Buehl dos not expressly disclose:
the blockchain;
The Examiner wishes to point out the “functionality” of a blockchain network is not being imported into the claim; therefore, the difference between cited networks (e.g., LAN, WAN, etc.,) and “blockchain networks” is not functionally involved within the steps recited. The prior steps, would be performed regardless since none of the prior 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 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 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the communicating within a network (e.g., LAN, WAN etc.,) by LIU/Buehl to include the interaction of a blockchain network, because devices within a network are able to communicate with each other.
As to claim 30:
Liu teaches:
wherein the communication circuit is further configured to transmit a response indicating a processing failure to an intermediary server, based on a determination of the determination circuit indicating that the user of the communication device does not have authority to process the first asset information ([0054], [0069], [0095], [0097]);
As to claim(s) 31 and 38:
Liu discloses as discussed above; however, Liu does not expressly disclose:
wherein the memory stores, for each type of user, first information in association with second information, the first information indicates whether the user has authority to request processing of the asset information, and the second information indicates whether the user has authority to change the asset information
However, Liu does teach the storing of “profile database” (Figure 1) which stores account credentials ([0029]). 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 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 the time of applicant’s invention that “authority rules” is an example of credential applied to a user, and is simply an example of user rules associated with a user profile. And that the type of information “authority rules” does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of “authority rules” does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
As to claim(s) 32 and 39:
Liu discloses as discussed above;
wherein the first transaction information (Abstract);
Liu does not expressly disclose:
…indicates a time at which a transfer of electricity is intermediated, an owner of the electricity after the transfer is completed, information specifying the first asset information corresponding to the electricity subject to the transfer, and a consumed amount of the electricity.
However, the difference between what the transaction information comprises are only found in the non-functional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. 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 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 the time of applicant’s invention that different types of information may be used in executing transactions and that specific types of data do not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Dante Ravetti whose telephone number is (571) 270-3609. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. John Hayes may be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 270-4609.
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-direct5yspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the private
PAIR system, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 1-(866)
217-9197. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service
Representative or access to the automated information system, call 1-(800) 786-
9199 (IN USA or CANADA) or 1 -(571) 272-1000.
/DANTE RAVETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697 10/3/2025
1 MPEP 2173.02 III B; “Examiners should bear in mind that "[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process." Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.” MPEP 2173.02 I “I. CLAIMS UNDER EXAMINATION ARE CONSTRUED DIFFERENTLY THAN PATENTED CLAIMS”
Prosecution Insights