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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-18 are directed to a machine (i.e., compute device), claim 19 is directed to a process (i.e., a method), and claim 20 is directed to a product (i.e., one or more machine-readable storage media), therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
The limitations of independent claim 19, which is representative of independent claims 1 and 20, have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 19 is identified in bold below:
[A] A method comprising:
[B] obtaining, by a compute device, a smart contract indicative of a
condition and a responsive action to be performed upon satisfaction of the condition;
[C] writing, by the compute device, the smart contract to a centrally managed immutable database;
[D] obtaining, by the compute device and from an event stream, data indicative of an event published to the event stream;
[E] determining, by the compute device, as a function of the event published to the event stream and the smart contract, whether the condition has been satisfied; and
[F] performing, by the compute device and in response to a determination that the condition has been satisfied, the responsive action.
Limitations A-F under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps or functions of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal/commercial behavior (e.g., obtaining, writing, obtaining, determining, performing in response to a determination). For example, the disclosure establishes having an indication to have a contract with a party, work out and agree to the rules and clauses that will be in the contract, store the contract, and invoke the contract when conditions for the contract are met, and then perform the transaction, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, limitations A - F recite at least one abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 19, which is representative of independent claims 1 and 20, recite at least one abstract idea and the analysis proceed to Step 2A.2.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular,
claims 19, recites the additional elements in bold below:
[A] A method comprising:
[B] obtaining, by a compute device, a smart contract indicative of a
condition and a responsive action to be performed upon satisfaction of the condition;
[C] writing, by the compute device, the smart contract to a centrally managed immutable database;
[D] obtaining, by the compute device and from an event stream, data indicative of an event published to the event stream;
[E] determining, by the compute device, as a function of the event published to the event stream and the smart contract, whether the condition has been satisfied; and
[F] performing, by the compute device and in response to a determination that the condition has been satisfied, the responsive action.
[G] Additionally, claim 1 recites “A compute device comprising: circuitry configured to:”
[H] And also, claim 20 recites “One or more machine-readable storage media comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to
being executed, cause a compute device to:”
The additional elements (“a compute device”, “A compute device comprising: circuitry configured to:”, and ““One or more machine-readable storage media comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to being executed, cause a compute device to:”), are no more than a generic computer performing operations to automate the purchase of a digital asset transaction. Also, the additional elements of (“a smart contract”), identifies the data to which the abstract idea applies as being “digital” or “electronic,” which is a general link to a technological environment. When the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole, amounts to no more than or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/a decentralized distributed ledger, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not recite any additional elements indicative of integration into a practical application. Rather, the claim as whole generally links the judicial exception to a technological environment (e.g., “a compute device”, “A compute device comprising: circuitry configured to:”, and ““One or more machine-readable storage media comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to being executed, cause a compute device to:”), defined by high level recitations of a computer/a decentralized distributed ledger and the Internet. Additionally, the additional element of (“a smart contract”) which are mere data used for automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process a contract between two or more entity in a transaction. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the outcome of the considerations at Step 2B will be the same when the considerations from Step 2A.2 are reevaluated. As discussed under Step 2A.2, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment through “instructions” performed by a generic computer. Because those instructions embody the abstract idea, the claim itself is merely a recitation of the abstract idea and an instruction to “apply it” on a computer. This is not enough to provide an inventive
concept. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, further recites further comprising: wherein to write the
smart contract to a centrally managed immutable database comprises to write the smart contract to a centrally managed blockchain in which blocks of data are linked with corresponding hashes; wherein the circuitry is further configured to: analyze the smart contract to identify a topic; and subscribe to the identified topic in the event stream to obtain the data indicative of the event published to the event stream; wherein to obtain a smart contract comprises to obtain a smart contract associated with a decentralized autonomous organization; wherein to obtain a smart contract associated with a decentralized autonomous organization comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a condition for membership in the decentralized autonomous organization; wherein to obtain a smart contract associated with a decentralized autonomous organization comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a decision to be voted on by the decentralized autonomous organization. For example, the claims establish writing a contract that is stored in a ledger used to conduct a transaction between agreed one or more entity, when the contractual condition is for membership in the organization is satisfied, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The claims do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-6 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 7-11, further recites wherein to obtain a smart contract
indicative of a decision to be voted on comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a proposed transfer of funds from the decentralized autonomous organization; wherein to obtain a smart contract indicative of a decision to be voted on comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a proposed change in smart contract logic; wherein to obtain a smart contract comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a financial agreement between multiple parties; wherein to obtain a smart contract indicative of a financial agreement between multiple parties comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a financial reward for maintaining a target account balance for a defined time period; wherein to obtain a smart contract indicative of a financial agreement between multiple parties comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of target number of payments to complete a purchase. For example, the claims establish writing a contract that is stored in a ledger used to conduct a financial transaction between agreed one or more entity, in the organization is satisfied, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The claims do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly
more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 7-11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-16, wherein the circuitry is further configured to update, in
response to obtaining the data indicative of the event, a data set indicative of progress towards the condition indicated in the smart contract; wherein to update the data set indicative of progress towards the condition comprises to update a data set indicative of a number of votes pertaining to a decision for a decentralized autonomous organization; wherein the circuitry is further configured to allocate the votes as a function of a number of governance tokens associated with a voting entity; wherein to update the data set indicative of progress towards the condition comprises to update a data set indicative of a total amount of time in which a target account balance has been maintained; wherein to update the data set indicative of progress towards the condition comprises to update a data set indicative of total payments made to complete a purchase. For example, the claims establish writing a contract that is stored in a ledger used to conduct a financial transaction between agreed one or more entity, and maintain an updated time and progress of the target account, with the organization, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The claims do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 12-16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 17-18, wherein the circuitry is further configured to write the
updated data set to the centrally managed immutable database; wherein the circuitry is further configured to write, to the centrally managed immutable database, update data indicative of satisfaction of the condition associated with the smart contract and wherein to perform the responsive action comprises to transfer money from an account associated with a decentralized autonomous organization to an account associated with another entity, change logic of a smart contract associated with the decentralized autonomous organization, change a membership of the decentralized autonomous organization, provide a reward for maintaining a target account balance for a defined time period, or provide a receipt for completion of a purchase that was made through multiple payments. For example, the claims establish writing a contract that is stored in a ledger used to conduct a financial transaction between agreed one or more entity, and maintain an updated time and progress of the target account, with the organization, which is a form of commercial and legal activities, fits squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of Step 2A. The claims do not recite any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 17-18 are not patent eligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an
ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea
into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement
to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the
computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract
idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Linton et al., (US 20200145214 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, Linton, teaches a computer device, one or more machine-readable storage media stored thereon that, in response to being executed, cause a compute device to: and a method comprising:
obtaining, by a compute device, a smart contract indicative of a condition and a responsive action to be performed upon satisfaction of the condition {see at least Abstract “…operation may include one or more of connecting, by a multi-party smart contract server, to a blockchain network configured to store cryptographic proofs, generating, by the multi-party smart contract server, a proposed transaction, providing, by the multi-party smart contract server, the proposed transaction to a plurality of participant nodes, receiving, by the multi-party smart contract server, responses to the proposed transaction from the participant nodes, executing, by the multi-party smart contract server, a smart contract to request from respondent participant nodes attestations of required conditions of the smart contract, receiving and verifying, by the multi-party smart contract server, the attestations from the respondent participant nodes, and executing the proposed transaction and posting a cryptographic proof of a successful execution to the blockchain, by the multi-party smart contract server, in response to a satisfaction of the required conditions of the smart contract”, and also ¶¶ 0007, 0069}.
writing, by the compute device, the smart contract to a centrally managed immutable database {see at least ¶ 0056 “…a smart contract may be created via a high-level application and programming language, and then written to a block in the blockchain. The smart contract may include executable code which is registered, stored, and/or replicated with a blockchain (e.g., distributed network of blockchain peers)…”}.
obtaining, by the compute device and from an event stream, data indicative of an event published to the event stream {see at least Fig., 4 ¶ 0069 “…At block 414, the processor 104 may generate a proposed transaction. At block 416, the processor 104 may provide the proposed transaction to a plurality of participant nodes. At block 418, the processor 104 may receive responses to the proposed transaction from the participant nodes. At block 420, the processor 104 may execute a smart contract to request from respondent participant nodes attestations of required conditions of the smart contract. At block 422, the processor 104 may receive and verify the attestations from the respondent participant nodes. At block 424, the processor 104 may execute the proposed transaction and post a cryptographic proof of a successful execution to the blockchain, in response to a satisfaction of the required conditions of the smart contract”}.
determining, by the compute device, as a function of the event published to the event stream and the smart contract, whether the condition has been satisfied {see at
least Fig., 4A step 418-424, ¶ 0069}, and
performing, by the compute device and in response to a determination that the condition has been satisfied, the responsive action {see at least Fig., 4B step 452, ¶ 0069}.
Regarding claim 2, Linton teaches, wherein to write the smart contract to a centrally managed immutable database comprises to write the smart contract to a centrally managed blockchain in which blocks of data are linked with corresponding hashes {see at least ¶¶ 0030, 0058 “A chaincode may include the code interpretation of a smart contract, with additional features. As described herein, the chaincode may be program code deployed on a computing network, where it is executed and validated by chain validators together during a consensus process. The chaincode receives a hash and retrieves from the blockchain a hash associated with the data template created by use of a previously stored feature extractor. If the hashes of the hash identifier and the hash created from the stored identifier template data match, then the chaincode sends an authorization key to the requested service. The chaincode may write to the blockchain data associated with the cryptographic details. In FIG. 2A, verification and execution of the proposed transaction may include execution of the smart contract. One function may be to commit a transaction related to execution of the smart contract on the ledger to record the execution results, which may be provided to one or more of the nodes 204-210”}.
Regarding claim 3, Linton teaches, wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
analyze the smart contract to identify a topic; and subscribe to the identified topic in the event stream to obtain the data indicative of the event published to the event stream {see at least ¶ 0069 “…At block 418, the processor 104 may receive responses to the proposed transaction from the participant nodes. At block 420, the processor 104 may execute a smart contract to request from respondent participant nodes attestations of required conditions of the smart contract. At block 422, the processor 104 may receive and verify the attestations from the respondent participant nodes. At block 424, the processor 104 may execute the proposed transaction and post a cryptographic proof of a successful execution to the blockchain, in response to a satisfaction of the required conditions of the smart contract”}.
Regarding claim 4, Linton teaches, wherein to obtain a smart contract comprises to obtain a smart contract associated with a decentralized autonomous organization {see at least ¶ 0056}.
Regarding claim 5, Linton teaches, wherein to obtain a smart contract associated with a decentralized autonomous organization comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a condition for membership in the decentralized autonomous organization {see at least ¶ 0007 “…executing, by the multi-party smart contract server, a smart contract to request from respondent participant nodes attestations of required conditions of the smart contract, receiving and verifying, by the multi-party smart contract server, the attestations from the respondent participant nodes, and executing the proposed transaction and posting a cryptographic proof of a successful execution to the blockchain, by the multi-party smart contract server, in response to a satisfaction of the required conditions of the smart contract”}.
Regarding claim 6, Linton teaches, wherein to obtain a smart contract associated with a decentralized autonomous organization comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a decision to be voted on by the decentralized autonomous organization {see at least ¶¶ 0007, 0069}.
Regarding claim 7, Linton teaches, wherein to obtain a smart contract indicative of a decision to be voted on comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a proposed transfer of funds from the decentralized autonomous organization {see at least ¶ 0051 “…the blockchain ledger 108 may store crypto-currency, authorization tokens and encryption keys. The blockchain 106 network may be configured to use one or more smart contracts that manage transactions for multiple participating nodes. The multi-party smart contract server 102 may provide a proposed transaction to the participant nodes 105”}.
Regarding claim 9, Linton teaches, wherein to obtain a smart contract comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a financial agreement between multiple parties {see at least ¶ 0051}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 3
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linton et al., (US 20200145214 A1) in view of Boudreault et al., (WO 2020041878 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Linton teaches, wherein to obtain a smart contract indicative of a decision to be voted on comprises to obtain a smart contract […] {see at least ¶ 0007, 0069}, however Linton does not explicitly disclose “the smart contract is indicative of a proposed change in smart contract logic”.
Boudreault however, discloses “the smart contract is indicative of a proposed change in smart contract logic” {see at least page 8 line 26-page 9 line 10 “…Contract clauses defined in the smart contract 1 may be amended over time. For example, an amendment may be made in the form of an addition of a new clause or a modification to an existing clause. It will be understood that the smart contract is initially defined by a set of one or more root contract clauses and amendments can be made to this set over time. It will be further understood that the amendment to the set of contract clauses causes the smart contract to have an updated set of electronically defined contract clauses. Continuing with the example illustrated in Figure 1 , a first amendment in the form of an addition of a new clause is provided. The amendment defines a new clause having a third variable 16c and its satisfaction value 12d. This new clause 8c, being a third clause of the exemplary smart contract, causes the set of clauses defining the smart contract to be updated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the smart contract of Linton to include the elements of Boudreault. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have flexible way of securing data to an immutable distributed ledger via contract clauses. Furthermore, Linton discloses use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction. Boudreault is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction in the same or similar context. Because both use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, as well as having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Linton, as well as Boudreault 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 Linton/Boudreault.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linton et al., (US 20200145214 A1) in view of Yang et al., (CN 109859049 A).
With respect to claim 10, Linton teaches wherein to obtain a smart contract indicative of a financial agreement between multiple parties […] {see at least ¶ 0007, 0069}, however Linton does not explicitly disclose “the smart contract is indicative of
a financial reward for maintaining a target account balance for a defined time period .
However, Yang discloses wherein to obtain a smart contract indicative of a financial agreement between multiple parties comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of a financial reward for maintaining a target account balance for a defined time period {see at least ¶¶ 0066-0067 “…When the first event is a withdrawal event, step S3 includes the following sub-steps: S311. Calculate the user's asset level based on the user's requested withdrawal amount and current account balance, and determine the range of preferential rewards based on the user's asset level”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the smart contract of Linton to include the elements of Yang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured data to an immutable distributed ledger via a smart contract. Furthermore, Linton discloses use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction. Yang is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction in the same or similar context. Because both use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, as well as having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Linton, as well as Yang 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 Linton/Yang.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linton et al., (US 20200145214 A1) in view of Balaraman et al., (US 20190164157 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Linton teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 9 above, but does not explicitly disclose, wherein to obtain a smart contract
indicative of a financial agreement between multiple parties comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of target number of payments to complete a purchase.
However, Balaraman discloses wherein to obtain a smart contract indicative of a financial agreement between multiple parties comprises to obtain a smart contract indicative of target number of payments to complete a purchase {see at least Abstract, claim 18 “…wherein the issuer system is configured to invoke the smart contract by passing the user public key and the transaction ID to the smart contract, and wherein the issuer system is configured to propagate the merchant ID, the transaction account number, the payment amount, and a transaction status to a blockchain network for writing to a blockchain according to the invoked smart contract”, and also claim 20 “…wherein the selected smart contract comprises a return policy, a refund policy, a partial payment schedule, a full payment workflow, a service deployment schedule, or a product delivery schedule”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the smart contract of Linton to include the elements of Balaraman. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured data to an immutable distributed ledger via a smart contract. Furthermore, Linton discloses use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction. Balaraman is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction in the same or similar context. Because both use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, as well as having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Linton, as well as Balaraman 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 Linton/Balaraman.
With respect to claim 12, Linton teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to update, in response to obtaining the data indicative of the event, a data set indicative of progress towards the condition indicated in the smart contract.
However, Balaraman discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to update, in response to obtaining the data indicative of the event, a data set indicative of progress towards the condition indicated in the smart contract {see at least Abstract, claim 18, claim 20}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the smart contract of Linton to include the elements of Balaraman. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured data to an immutable distributed ledger via a smart contract. Furthermore, Linton discloses use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction. Balaraman is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction in the same or similar context. Because both use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, as well as having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Linton, as well as Balaraman 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 Linton/Balaraman.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Linton in view of Balaraman teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 12 above.
Furthermore, Linton discloses wherein to update the data set indicative of progress towards the condition comprises to update a data set indicative of a number of votes pertaining to a decision for a decentralized autonomous organization {Abstract, ¶¶ 0007, 0069}.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Linton in view of Balaraman teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 13 above.
Furthermore, Linton discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to allocate the votes as a function of a number of governance tokens associated with a voting entity {see at least Abstract, ¶¶ 0007, 0069}.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Linton in view of Balaraman teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 12 above.
Furthermore, Linton discloses wherein to update the data set indicative of progress towards the condition comprises to update a data set indicative of a total amount of time in which a target account balance has been maintained {see at least ¶ 0049 “…the process may include exchange of crypto-currency and/or exchange of an authorizing token or of a cryptographic key. In this case, in phase 1, the crypto-currency is collected and held in escrow by the smart contract, until a successful completion of phase 2, at which time it is transferred to the receiving party(ies) according to the smart contract terms. If the timeout occurs or any required condition of the contract fails, the crypto-currency is released back from escrow to the original parties”, ¶ 0069}.
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Linton in view of Balaraman teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 12 above.
Furthermore, Balaraman discloses wherein to update the data set indicative of progress towards the condition comprises to update a data set indicative of total payments made to complete a purchase{[e.g., “transaction status”], see at least ¶ 0045 “…For example, user blockchain wallet 115 may propagate transaction data including the merchant ID, the transaction account number, the payment amount, transaction status (e.g., completed, pending, etc.), and/or the like; data regarding a contractual agreement such as a warranty place, return policy, payment installation policy, or the like; and/or any other data relating to the transaction… in response to the smart contract and/or transaction stipulating that the transaction involves multiple payments (e.g., a payment schedule) and/or multiple steps, transaction authorization process 401 may repeat step 405 through step 423” }.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the smart contract of Linton to include the elements of Balaraman. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have updated payment data to an immutable distributed ledger via a smart contract. Furthermore, Linton discloses use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction. Balaraman is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having an updated payment record in a blockchain transaction in the same or similar context. Because both use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, as well as having an updated payment record in a blockchain transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, combining their features as outlined above, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Linton, as well as Balaraman 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 Linton/Balaraman.
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Linton in view of Balaraman teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 12 above.
Furthermore, Linton discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to write the updated data set to the centrally managed immutable database {see at least ¶ 0055 “…As a non-limiting example, smart contracts may be created to execute reminders, updates, and/or other notifications subject to the changes, updates, etc. The smart contracts can themselves be used to identify rules associated with authorization and access requirements and usage of the ledger…”, and also ¶ 0083 ” Transactions are written to the distributed ledger 630 in a consistent order. The order of transactions is established to ensure that the updates to the state database 634 are valid when they are committed to the network. Unlike a crypto-currency blockchain system (e.g., Bitcoin, etc.) where ordering occurs through the solving of a cryptographic puzzle, or mining, in this example the parties of the distributed ledger 630 may choose the ordering mechanism that best suits that network”, and also ¶ 0084 “…When the committing peer validates the transaction, the transaction is written to the blockchain 632 on the distributed ledger 630, and the state database 634 is updated with the write data from the read-write set. If a transaction fails, that is, if the committing peer finds that the read-write set does not match the current world state in the state database 634, the transaction ordered into a block will still be included in that block, but it will be marked as invalid, and the state database 634 will not be updated”}.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linton et al., (US 20200145214 A1) in view of Boudreault et al., (WO 2020041878 A1) and further in view of Yang et al., (CN 109859049 A) and in view of Balaraman et al., (US 20190164157 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Linton teaches all the subject matter as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Furthermore, Linton discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to write, to the centrally managed immutable database, update data indicative of satisfaction of the condition associated with the smart contract {see at least ¶¶ 0055, 0083-0084}, and wherein to perform the responsive action comprises to transfer money from an account associated with a decentralized autonomous organization to an account associated with another entity {see at least ¶ 0051},change a membership of the decentralized autonomous organization {see at least ¶ 0065 “…Meanwhile, a blockchain network operator system of nodes 308 manages member permissions, such as enrolling the regulator system 310 as an “auditor” and the blockchain user 302 as a “client.” An auditor could be restricted only to querying the ledger whereas a client could be authorized to deploy, invoke, and query certain types of chaincode”}, however, Linton does not explicitly disclose
“change logic of a smart contract associated with the decentralized autonomous organization, provide a reward for maintaining a target account balance for a defined time period, or provide a receipt for completion of a purchase that was made through multiple payments”.
Boudreault however, discloses “change logic of a smart contract associated with the decentralized autonomous organization” {see at least page 8 line 26-page 9 line 10}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the smart contract of Linton to include the elements of Boudreault. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have flexible way of securing data to an immutable distributed ledger via contract clauses. Furthermore, Linton discloses use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction. Boudreault is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction in the same or similar context. Because both use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, as well as having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, 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 Linton, as well as Boudreault 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 Linton/Boudreault.
The combination of Linton in view of Boudreault, does not explicitly disclose provide a reward for maintaining a target account balance for a defined time period, or provide a receipt for completion of a purchase that was made through multiple payments”.
Yang however discloses provide a reward for maintaining a target account balance for a defined time period {see at least ¶¶ 0066-0067}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the smart contract of Linton in view of Boudreault to include the elements of Yang. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have a secured data to an immutable distributed ledger via a smart contract. Furthermore, Linton discloses use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, and Boudreault discloses having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction. Yang is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction in the same or similar context. Because both use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, and having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, as well as having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, combining their features as outlined above, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Linton in view of Boudreault, as well as Yang 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
Linton/Boudreault/Yang.
The combination of Linton in view of Boudreault in view of Yang, does not explicitly disclose, or provide a receipt for completion of a purchase that was made through multiple payments”
Balaraman however, discloses “…or provide a receipt for completion of a purchase that was made through multiple payments {see at least ¶ 0043 “Issuer authorization system 140 notifies merchant application 117 of receipt of the payment (step 417). For example, the smart contract may transmit via issuer authorization system 140 and transaction network 145 to merchant application 117 a payment receipt comprising data indicating a successfully authorized transaction. Merchant application 117 confirms transaction data with user device 110 (step 419)…”, ¶ 0045 “…In various embodiments, in response to the smart contract and/or transaction stipulating that the transaction involves multiple payments (e.g., a payment schedule) and/or multiple steps, transaction authorization process 401 may repeat step 405 through step 423”}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the smart contract of Linton in view of Boudreault, in view of Yang, to include the elements of Balaraman. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to have updated payment data to an immutable distributed ledger via a smart contract. Furthermore, Linton discloses use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, Boudreault discloses having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, and Yang discloses having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction. Balaraman is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of having an updated payment record in a blockchain transaction in the same or similar context. Because both use of smart contract in a blockchain transaction, having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, and having a modified smart contract clauses in a blockchain transaction, as well as having an updated payment record in a blockchain transaction, are implemented through well-known computer technologies, combining their features as outlined above, would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Linton in view of Boudreault, in view of Yang as well as Balaraman, 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 Linton/Boudreault/Yang/Balaraman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon:
1) (US 20190253239 A1) – Shao et al., Blockchain Smart Contract Updates using Decentralized Decision - relates generally to disclosure include computer-implemented methods for updating smart contracts. More particularly, implementations of the present disclosure are directed to updating a smart contract by executing an updates smart contract within a contract updates management system.
2) (US 20190332702 A1) – Manamohan et al., System and Method of Decentralized Management of Multi-Owner Nodes using Blockchain – relates to decentralized management of nodes in a blockchain network. Participants may agree to a consensus rules and implement them as smart contracts. For example, one rule may specify that a node will accept a change proposal only when its local policies and/or data allow it to implement the change. A smart contract may implement this rule and deploy it across the blockchain network for each node to follow.
3) (US Pat. 10855475 B1) – Leach et al., Systems And Methods For Securing Data To An Immutable Distributed Ledger – relates to the instant disclosure describing securing data to immutable distributed ledgers, such as those implemented using blockchain methodologies.
4) (US Pat. 11556925 B2) - Deshpande et al., Ensuring Information Fairness and Input Privacy Using a Blockchain In a Competitive Scenario Governed By a Smart Contract - generally relates to smart contracts, and more particularly to ensuring information fairness and input privacy using a blockchain in a competitive scenario governed by a smart contract.
5) (US Pat. 12271894 B2) – Hennebert et al., Method Of Selective Authentication Of A Blockchain User With A Smart Contract - relates to the general field of blockchains, and more particularly to the field of smart contracts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT IDIAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 10:30AM to 7:30PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICK MCATEE, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form
/V.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698