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 .
Acknowledgement
The preliminary amendments filed on 09/27/2024 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, and 16 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 13-15, and 17-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-29 have been added. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 16, and 21-29 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the permissioned blockchain” in the last line of the claim should be “the permissioned blockchain.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4, 6-12, 16, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 16, and 21-29 fall into at least one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.1.
Step 2A.1:
The limitations of independent claim 1 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. Independent claims 12 and 16 recite similar distinguishing features as claim 1, therefore the following eligibility analysis shall apply to all independent claims. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are identified in bold below:
a computer-implemented method for controlling access to a permissioned blockchain, comprising:
receiving, from a read-only requester entity, a read-only access request, being a request for registration as a read-only blockchain user;
determining whether or not to allow the read-only request, and
in response to determining to allow the read-only request, registering the read-only requester entity as a read-only blockchain user, having permission to read data from the permissioned blockchain in the absence of permission to write data to the permissioned blockchain, wherein
the permissioned blockchain is a financial transaction ledger recording payments between payment participants in exchange for goods or services;
the read-only blockchain user is an accounting system;
the read-only request specifies a monitored entity, the monitored entity being a user of the accounting system; and
in response to determining to allow the read-only request, the read-only requester entity is registered as a read-only blockchain user for the monitored entity, the registration granting the read-only requester entity permission to read data from the financial transaction ledger regarding transactions in which the monitored entity is recorded as a payment participant; and
the computer-implemented method further comprising:
receiving, from one or more read write requester entities, one or more respective read write access requests, each read write access request being a request for registration as a read and write blockchain user; and
determining whether or not to allow each read write access request, and
in response to determining to allow a read write access request, registering the respective read write requester entity as a read and write blockchain user, having permission to read data from the permissioned blockchain and permission to write data to the permissioned blockchain
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, A, C-D, H-I, and K-L recite limitations that are reasonably categorized under mental processes. Specifically, controlling access by determining whether or not to allow an access request, registering the requester entity and granting permission to read/write data in response to determining to allow access request are considered concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, in the form of evaluation and judgment.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 recite at least one abstract idea. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.2.
Step 2A.2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional element(s) not in bold above.
Additional elements in B, G, and J are considered insignificant extra-solution activities because they amount to no more than mere data gathering. They do not meaningfully limit how access to the permissioned blockchain is controlled MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Additional elements in A, E-F, and I have all been recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. finance and accounting. Furthermore, merely reciting performing the method steps related to a “permissioned blockchain” is a general usage of a data structure. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and/or a data structure, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 12 and 16 further recite “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a computing apparatus having memory hardware and processor hardware, causes the processor hardware to perform a method,” “a computing apparatus comprising memory hardware and processor hardware, the memory hardware storing processing instructions which when executed by the processor hardware, configure the process hardware to,” and “the processor being further configured to” as additional elements. The additional elements have all been recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computing components. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, the claims amount to no more than mere software instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
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 considerations from Step 2A.2 are re-evaluated. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that receiving data (i.e. B, G, and J) is considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” Symantec). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3-4 are considered additional elements but have all been recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 6, 21, and 24 recite “adding a new block to the financial transaction ledger recording a new payment between payment participants” and “notifying the particular read-only blockchain user of the new payment” as additional elements. The comparing step is considered part of the abstract idea of mental processes, i.e. observation and/or evaluation. The aforementioned additional elements are considered are considered insignificant extra-solution activities because they do not impose any meaningful limits on how access to the permissioned blockchain is controlled. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that electronic recordkeeping (“adding a new block…”) and transmitting data (“notifying…”) are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “electronic recordkeeping,” Alice Corp., “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” Symantec). Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7, 22, and 25 recite “receiving an update request from a registered read-only blockchain user” and “responding to the update request with a notification of the identified payments” as additional elements. The identifying step is considered part of the abstract idea of mental processes, i.e. observation. The aforementioned additional elements are considered are considered insignificant extra-solution activities because they do not impose any meaningful limits on how access to the permissioned blockchain is controlled. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that receiving and transmitting data (“receiving an update request…,” “responding to…with a notification…”) are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network,” Symantec). Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8, 23, and 26 recite limitations related to the read-only certificate, which are considered part of the abstract idea above. Issuing a certificate can be practically performed by a human using a pen and paper. The limitations related to encrypting and decrypting introduce another abstract idea: mathematical concepts. Encrypting and decrypting are considered mathematical calculations. The limitation “replicating the blockchain to read and write blockchain users and to read-only blockchain users” is an additional element. This additional element is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity because it does not impose any meaningful limits on how access to the permissioned blockchain is controlled. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that electronic recordkeeping (“replicating the blockchain…” is analogous to creating another record) is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “electronic recordkeeping,” Alice Corp.). Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination with the abstract idea(s), these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 9-10 elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements not already addressed. The “transmitting” and “receiving” steps are given a similar analysis and suffer from the same conclusion(s) as identified above. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 11 recite “reconciling the transaction information with a corresponding entry or entries in a general ledger for monitored entity maintained by the accounting system” as an additional element. The “receiving data” step is also an additional element, it is given a similar analysis and suffer from the same conclusion(s) as identified above.
The “reconciling the transaction information…” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity because it does not impose any meaningful limits on how access to the permissioned blockchain is controlled. Furthermore, such limitation is interpreted to mean updating and/or maintaining the general ledger with the transaction information. The courts have recognized that electronic recordkeeping is a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “electronic recordkeeping,” Alice Corp.). Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 27-29 elaborate on the abstract idea without introducing any new additional elements not already addressed. Therefore, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application such that the abstract idea amounts 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, claims 1, 3-4, 6-12, 16, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9, 12, 16, 23, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan U.S. 2021/0243193.
Re Claim 1, Padmanabhan teaches a computer-implemented method for controlling access to a permissioned blockchain, comprising:
receiving, from a read-only requester entity, a read-only access request, being a request for registration as a read-only blockchain user [0419] – “receives a read request for data stored on the blockchain from a user authenticated with the host organization”;
determining whether or not to allow the read-only request ([0421] – “attains consensus from participating nodes of the blockchain for the write transaction,” the write transaction specifying the user and the read request [0420]), and in response to determining to allow the read-only request, registering the read-only requester entity as a read-only blockchain user, having permission to read data from the permissioned blockchain in the absence of permission to write data to the permissioned blockchain ([0421] – “allowing the user to read the data identified by the read request, in which the write transaction is added to the blockchain with an indication the user has permission to read the data identified by the read request”), wherein
Examiner notes the following limitations “the permissioned blockchain is a financial transaction ledger recording payments between payment participants in exchange for goods or services,” “the read-only blockchain user is an accounting system,” and “the read-only request specifies a monitored entity, the monitored entity being a user of the accounting system” are considered nonfunctional descriptive language. Such language do not meaningfully limit how access is controlled to the permissioned blockchain, how the request is received, how the request is determined to be allowed or not, and/or how the entity is registered. Therefore, these limitations cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided below.
the permissioned blockchain is a financial transaction ledger recording payments between payment participants in exchange for goods or services [0093];
the read-only blockchain user is an accounting system ([0343] – “A participant…can be a defined set of users or entities that have ownership or access privileges over specified data in the blockchain,” [0345] – “access request from a third party…a third party may be a college,” since the “accounting system” has been broadly recited, it is interpreted to be merely an entity, therefore, participant/third party is analogous to the “accounting system”);
the read-only request specifies a monitored entity, the monitored entity being a user of the accounting system ([0345] – “a third party may be a college requesting to review transcripts of a student,” the student of the college being analogous to a monitored entity being a user of the accounting system); and
in response to determining to allow the read-only request, the read-only requester entity is registered as a read-only blockchain user for the monitored entity, the registration granting the read-only requester entity permission to read data from the financial transaction ledger regarding transactions in which the monitored entity is recorded as a payment participant ([0346] – “The access request of the third party can then be accepted to grant access to the requested record…in the blockchain,” the requested record being the transcript(s) of the student [0345], i.e. the monitored entity); and
Although the example provided in Padmanabhan is related to a college as the third party and a student as the owner of the requested information, Padmanabhan also suggests the process may be applied to financial transactions, purchase receipts, digital rights management records, or any kind of data that is storable via a payload of a blockchain protocol [0093]. Furthermore, Padmanabhan discloses permissions or privileges for access control associated with transaction data stored on the blockchain in [0297]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the disclosed steps are also reasonably applicable to a financial transaction ledger regarding transactions in which the monitored entity is recorded as a payment participant.
the computer-implemented method further comprising:
receiving, from one or more read write requester entities, one or more respective read write access requests, each read write access request being a request for registration as a read and write blockchain user ([0347] – “receiving a request including an identifier of a requestor, the request to access transaction data having defined privileges” [0334] – “access levels can be defined with two types, a permission level (e.g., read, write, and read/write),” thereby suggesting a request to access can include request to read/write); and
determining whether or not to allow each read write access request ([0348-0349] – determining the read/write privileges), and in response to determining to allow a read write access request, registering the respective read write requester entity as a read and write blockchain user, having permission to read data from the permissioned blockchain and permission to write data to the permissioned blockchain ([0343] – “Access controls (which are also referred to as “permissions”) are definable and configurable in relation to participants, records, record policies, and record authorization,” [0344] – “a record policy can be a junction object that keeps the record and participant access policy…permission level (e.g., read, write, read/write),” [0452] – “permissions, etc., may be updated at anytime through the updating of the access control objects.” Defining, configuring, and/or updating a participant’s, i.e. requester entity, access controls/permissions are analogous to registering the requester entity as a read and write blockchain user.)
Re Claim 8, Padmanabhan teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, and Padmanabhan further teaches further comprising:
upon registering the read-only blockchain user for a monitored entity, issuing the read-only blockchain user entity with a read-only certificate specific to the monitored entity [0420] – “issues a write transaction to the blockchain specifying both (i) the user and (ii) the read request,” [0421] – “the write transaction at the blockchain pursuant to the access controls for the user being validated by the smart contract as allowing the user to read the data identified by the read request”;
replicating the blockchain to read and write blockchain users and to read-only blockchain users [0070] – “Blockchain systems use a peer-to-peer (P2P) network of nodes, and consensus algorithms ensure replication of digital data across nodes,” the financial transaction ledger of the blockchain being selectively cryptographically encrypted in the blockchain with an encryption code selected per recorded payment in dependence upon the payment participants [0291] – “…the blockchain which is protected by encryption. A request to read data in the blockchain can have any level of granularity where fields, records, metadata or similar data in the blockchain can be separately protected by the process”; and
the read-only certificate specific to the monitored entity being configured to decrypt the financial transaction ledger to obtain a notification of recorded transactions in which the monitored entity is a payment participant, and not to decrypt the remainder of the financial transaction ledger (The “read-only certificate” is interpreted to be an indicator of rights and/or access control for the entity to which it is issued. [0296] – “the requested data can be decrypted and accessed” by the requesting node).
Re Claim 9, Padmanabhan teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, and Padmanabhan further teaches the method further comprising, at a computing apparatus:
transmitting, to a blockchain user registration entity operable to register users and associated permissions of the users for accessing the permissioned blockchain, a request for registration as a read-only blockchain user of the permissioned blockchain ([0421] – “attains consensus from the participating nodes of the blockchain…pursuant to the access controls,” thereby suggesting the request is transmitted to the participating nodes, the participating nodes being analogous to a “blockchain user registration entity”); and
receiving, from the blockchain user registration entity, notification of registration as a read-only blockchain user of the permissioned blockchain [0421] – “attains consensus from the participating nodes,” wherein
the permissioned blockchain is a financial transaction ledger recording payments between payment participants in exchange for goods or services [0093].
Re Claim 29, Padmanabhan teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, and Padmanabhan further teaches wherein
the permissioned blockchain is a private blockchain to which access is controlled by a financial institute [0331] – “These access control functions are applicable to both permissioned (i.e., private) and public blockchains.”
Re Claims 12 and 23, they are the non-transitory computer-readable medium claims of claims 1 and 8, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1 and 8. Furthermore, Padmanabhan discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon in [0445]. Therefore, claims 12 and 23 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claims 16, 26, and 27, they are the apparatus claims of claims 1, 8, and 29, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1, 8, and 29. Furthermore, Padmanabhan discloses at least a processor and a memory in [0445-0446]. Therefore, claims 16, 26, and 27 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 3, 4, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan U.S. 2021/0243193 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cash et al. U.S. Patent 11,373,187 (herein as “Cash”).
Examiner notes the limitations of claim 3 is nonfunctional descriptive language. It merely provides context to the requester entity without requiring any steps to be performed. The recitation “providing a mechanism…” is merely describing the very definition of a point-of-sale system. Therefore, it does not meaningfully limit how access to a permissioned blockchain is controlled and cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided below.
Re Claim 3, Padmanabhan teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, however, Padmanabhan does not explicitly teach wherein
the read and write requester entities include a point-of-sale system, the point-of-sale system being a distributed multi-user system, providing a mechanism for system users to accept payments from customers in exchange for goods or services provided by the system users to the customers; and
the point-of-sale system being registered as a read and write blockchain user of the permissioned blockchain and being configured to record in the financial transaction ledger the accepted payments between the customers and the system users as payment participants.
Cash discloses an interchange system for managing transactions. Specifically, Cash discloses
the read and write requester entities include a point-of-sale system, the point-of-sale system being a distributed multi-user system, providing a mechanism for system users to accept payments from customers in exchange for goods or services provided by the system users to the customers Col. 4, lines 5-15 – “the system may include a point-of-sale (POS) terminal…configured to receive payments in exchange for goods and/or services”; and
the point-of-sale system being registered as a read and write blockchain user of the permissioned blockchain and being configured to record in the financial transaction ledger the accepted payments between the customers and the system users as payment participants Col. 9, lines 43-47 – “The distributed ledger system may support closed enrollment, to provide a ledger that is only accessible to authorized entities,” Col. 5, lines 50-51 – “a record of the transaction may be stored on the distributed ledger.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Padmanabhan’s users (or entities, participants, and/or businesses) with the teachings of a point-of-sale system in Cash. The modification is a simple substitution of one known element, i.e. a point-of-sale system, for another to obtain predictable results.
Examiner notes the limitations of claim 4 is nonfunctional descriptive language. It merely provides context to the requester entity without requiring any steps to be performed. The recitations “holding currency…” and “transferring currency…” are merely describing a definition of a financial institute. Therefore, the claim does not meaningfully limit how access to a permissioned blockchain is controlled and cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided below.
Re Claim 4, Padmanabhan teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, however, Padmanabhan does not explicitly teach wherein
the read write requester entities include a financial institute maintaining financial accounts holding currency on behalf of account holding entities, via which financial accounts account holding entities enter into transactions as a payer entity transferring currency from a respective financial account to a payee entity, or as a payee entity receiving currency into a respective financial account from a payer entity; and
the financial institute being registered as a read and write blockchain user of the permissioned blockchain.
Cash discloses an interchange system for managing transactions. Specifically, Cash discloses
the read write requester entities include a financial institute maintaining financial accounts holding currency on behalf of account holding entities, via which financial accounts account holding entities enter into transactions as a payer entity transferring currency from a respective financial account to a payee entity, or as a payee entity receiving currency into a respective financial account from a payer entity Col. 10, lines 44-47 – “Various institutions, such as financial institutions (e.g., banks, credit unions, investment management firms, etc.) may opt into and participate in the distributed leger based interchange system”; and
the financial institute being registered as a read and write blockchain user of the permissioned blockchain Col. 9, lines 43-47 – “The distributed ledger system may support closed enrollment, to provide a ledger that is only accessible to authorized entities (e.g. members of the interchange system consortium)…(e.g., banks)”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Padmanabhan’s users (or entities, participants, and/or businesses) with the teachings of a financial institution in Cash. The modification is a simple substitution of one known element, i.e. a financial institution, for another to obtain predictable results.
Examiner notes the limitations of claim 28 is nonfunctional descriptive language. It merely provides context to the requester entity and monitored entity without requiring any steps to be performed. Therefore, the claim does not meaningfully limit how access to a permissioned blockchain is controlled and cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided below.
Re Claim 28, Padmanabhan teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, however, Padmanabhan does not explicitly teach wherein
at least one of the read write requester entities is a point-of-sale system, and the monitored entity is a user of both the point-of-sale system and the accounting system.
Cash discloses an interchange system for managing transactions. Specifically, Cash discloses
at least one of the read write requester entities is a point-of-sale system (Col. 4, lines 5-15 – “the system may include a point-of-sale (POS) terminal…configured to receive payments in exchange for goods and/or services”), and the monitored entity is a user of both the point-of-sale system and the accounting system (Col. 4, lines 29-32 – “The user may employ the user device, in proximity to the POS terminal 102, to request that a transaction be initiated (e.g., a purchase transaction),” Col. 23, lines 8-10 – “the first entity may have an account with a first financial institution,” the first entity being involved in a transaction, therefore, the first entity is also considered a user.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Padmanabhan’s users (or entities, participants, and/or businesses) with the teachings of a point-of-sale system and an accounting system in Cash. The modification is a simple substitution of known elements, i.e. a point-of-sale system and accounting system, for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 6, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan U.S. 2021/0243193 as applied to claims 1, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Lanc U.S. 2013/0212022.
Re Claim 6, Padmanabhan teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, and Padmanabhan further teaches further comprising:
adding a new block to the financial transaction ledger recording a new payment between payment participants [0093] – “Block payload 169 data stored within the block may relate to any number of a wide array of transactional data…including…financial transactions, ownership information…purchase receipts,” [0209] – “adding a transaction to a new block on the blockchain.”
notifying the particular read-only blockchain user of the new payment [0375] – “triggering a notification or issuing a confirmation to a transaction requestor.”
However, Padmanabhan does not explicitly teach
comparing the payment participants for the new payment with registered monitored entities of read-only blockchain users to determine that a payment participant is the monitored entity for a particular read-only blockchain user.
Lanc discloses a secure authentication and payment system. Specifically, Lanc discloses
comparing the payment participants for the new payment with registered monitored entities of read-only blockchain users to determine that a payment participant is the monitored entity for a particular read-only blockchain user [0082] – “compare the supplied consumer identification code and details with those stored within user records to provide an indication that the user is a registered user.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Padmanabhan’s access control method and system with the teachings of comparing the payment participants with registered monitored entities to determine that a payment participant is the monitored entity in Lanc. One would be motivated to make the combination to ensure other users of the system can have confidence that they are transacting with another member of a trusted network Lanc, [0082].
Re Claim 21, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of claim 6. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 6. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claim 24, it is the apparatus claim of claim 6. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 6. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 7, 10-11, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan U.S. 2021/0243193 as applied to claims 9, 12, 16, and 29 above, and further in view of Drury et al. U.S. 2015/0088707 (herein as “Drury”).
Re Claim 7, Padmanabhan teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 29, however, Padmanabhan does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving an update request from a registered read-only blockchain user;
for blocks in the permissioned blockchain having timestamps belonging to a defined time period, identifying payments recorded in the financial transaction ledger in which a payment participant is the monitored entity for the read-only blockchain user from which the update request is received; and
responding to the update request with a notification of the identified payments.
Drury discloses systems and methods of access control and system integration. Specifically, Drury discloses
receiving an update request from a registered read-only blockchain user [0078] – “requested by the accounting application”;
for blocks in the permissioned blockchain having timestamps belonging to a defined time period, identifying payments recorded in the financial transaction ledger in which a payment participant is the monitored entity for the read-only blockchain user from which the update request is received [0078] – “generate bank feeds for an accounting server…feed data can include information regarding transactions on a particular account, ” [0121] – “request the data to be included in a periodic data feed (e.g., a nightly feed)”; and
responding to the update request with a notification of the identified payments [0240] – “periodically send feed data to the accounting platform.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Padmanabhan’s access control method and system with the teachings of receiving an update request, identifying payments recorded in which a payment participant is the monitored entity within a defined time period, and responding to the update request with a notification of the identified payments in Drury. One would be motivated to make this combination to allow for both the accountant and the business owner to have real-time visibility into the health of the business Drury, [0031].
Re Claim 10, Padmanabhan teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 9, however, Padmanabhan do not explicitly teach wherein
the computing apparatus is an accounting system having, as a user, a payee entity in one or more payments in the financial transaction ledger;
the request for registration as a read-only blockchain user of the permissioned blockchain specifying, as a monitored entity, the user; and
the registration granting, to the accounting system, permission to read data from the financial transaction ledger regarding transactions in which the monitored entity is the payee entity.
Drury discloses systems and methods of access control and system integration. Specifically, Drury discloses
the computing apparatus is an accounting system having, as a user, a payee entity in one or more payments in the financial transaction ledger [0130];
the request for registration as a read-only blockchain user of the permissioned blockchain specifying, as a monitored entity, the user ([0129], “the user” in this instance is interpreted to be the user defined above as a “payee entity,” [0041] – profits are reported, therefore, the client, i.e. user, is a “payee entity”); and
the registration granting, to the accounting system, permission to read data from the financial transaction ledger regarding transactions in which the monitored entity is the payee entity ([0130] – “Once a bank account with the feed service is connected to an accounting software system account,” thereby suggesting the permission is granted.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Padmanabhan’s access control method and system with the teachings of granting to the accounting system permission to read data from the financial transaction ledger regarding the monitored entity in Drury. One would be motivated to make this combination to allow for both the accountant and the business owner to have real-time visibility into the health of the business Drury, [0031].
Re Claim 11, Padmanabhan in view of Drury teach the computer-implemented method according to claim 10, and Padmanabhan in view of Drury further teach further comprising, at the accounting system:
receiving data from the permissioned blockchain comprising transaction information representing one or more transactions in which the monitored entity is the payee entity Drury, [0241] – “The account platform periodically receives the financial account data in a feed”; and
reconciling the transaction information with a corresponding entry or entries in a general ledger for the monitored entity maintained by the accounting system Drury, [0241] – “generates additional bookkeeping data for the corresponding bookkeeping account…as new data is received.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Padmanabhan’s access control method and system with the teachings of receiving data comprising transaction information representing one or more transactions for the monitored entity and reconciling the transaction information with a corresponding entry in a general ledger for the monitored entity in Drury. One would be motivated to make this combination to allow for both the accountant and the business owner to have real-time visibility into the health of the business Drury, [0031].
Re Claim 22, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of claim 7. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 7. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Re Claim 25, it is the apparatus claim of claim 7. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 7. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dubeau et al. U.S. 2023/0014916 directed to technologies for auditing and maintaining access to protected data. See at least [0018]-[0021].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698