DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to amendment and response filed on 11/25/25. Claims 1, 12 and 20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
101: The Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant essentially argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are moot because the claims were amended substantively. Per example, claim 1 amendments include additional elements (e.g.: “[acquiring the] service logic [contract through the target proxy contract, the] service logic [contract being a] smart [contract] deployed in the blockchain network …”) that necessitate reconsideration of the claims.
As such, an updated rejection is provided that addresses the amended claims.
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. (Step 1) The claims recite a process (claims 1-11), an apparatus (claims 12-19) and an article of manufacture (claim 20). For the purposes of this analysis, representative claim 12 (from claims 1, 12 and 20) is addressed. (Step 2A, prong 1) Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represent organizing human activity as a method of managing contracts while performing associated wallet based transactions (see FIG. 2, item 201, para. 35-36 of the specification as filed), as are all a form of commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
An electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors, a memory, and a network interface, the one or more processors being connected to the memory and the network interface, the network interface being configured to provide a data communication function, and the memory being configured to store computer executable instructions that, when being executed, cause the one or more processors to perform:
receiving a service-logic-contract calling transaction associated with a first object;
acquiring a management contract when a consensus on the service-logic-contract calling transaction is passed, the management contract storing one or more proxy contract addresses, each proxy contract address being associated with a different object on-chain address, and a proxy contract corresponding to each proxy contract address being associated with a service logic contract;
acquiring, in the one or more proxy contract addresses, a proxy contract address associated with a first object on-chain address corresponding to the first object as a target proxy contract address through the management contract;
acquiring a target proxy contract corresponding to the target proxy contract address, and acquiring the service logic contract through the target proxy contract, the service logic contract being a smart contract deployed in the blockchain network and being associated with a plurality of proxy contracts that includes the target proxy contract, wherein the plurality of proxy contracts reuses the same service logic contract, and an amount of code of the service logic contract stored in the blockchain network is greater than an amount of code of each of the plurality of proxy contracts stored in the blockchain network;
executing the service-logic-contract calling transaction through the service logic contract to obtain a transaction execution result, and writing the transaction execution result into the target proxy contract, the transaction execution result in the target proxy contract being associated with the first object.
(Step 2A prong 2) The additional elements are as follows:
“An electronic device, comprising”, “one or more processors, a memory, and a network interface, the one or more processors being connected to the memory and the network interface, the network interface being configured to provide a data communication function, and the memory being configured to store computer executable instructions that, when being executed, cause the one or more processors to perform”. This is no more than apply it as the “electronic device” that comprises “one or more processors, a memory, and a network interface, the one or more processors being connected to the memory and the network interface, the network interface being configured to provide a data communication function, and the memory being configured to store computer executable instructions that, when being executed, cause the one or more processors to perform” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“service-logic [contract]”. This is no more than apply it as the “service-logic” is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is also general linking as “service-logic” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“on-chain”. This is no more than apply it as the “on-chain” is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is also general linking as “on-chain” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“smart [contract]” and “deployed in the blockchain network”. This is no more than “apply it” as “deployed in the blockchain network” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and “smart [contract]” and “deployed in the blockchain network” are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is also general linking as “smart [contract]” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“an amount of code of the service logic [contract] stored in the blockchain network is greater than an amount of code of each of [the plurality of proxy contracts] stored in the blockchain network”. This is no more than “apply it” as “an amount of code of the service logic [contract] stored in the blockchain network is greater than an amount of code of each of [the plurality of proxy contracts] stored in the blockchain network” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). This is also general linking as “stored in the blockchain network” does no more than link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing contracts while performing associated wallet based transactions, over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 6 and 17 recite “wherein the management contract comprises proxy contract deployment code and a service logic contract address corresponding to the service logic contract”, “deploying the target proxy contract associated with the service logic contract through the management contract comprises”, “creating an initial proxy contract by executing the proxy contract deployment code” and “writing the service logic contract address into the initial proxy contract to obtain the target proxy contract associated with the service logic contract” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements that include:
“proxy contract deployment code” and “executing the proxy contract deployment code”. This is no more than “apply it” as “proxy contract deployment code” and “executing the proxy contract deployment code” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing contracts while performing associated wallet based transactions over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 7 and 18 recite “receiving a management contract deployment transaction associated with a management object, wherein the management contract deployment transaction comprises management contract code, proxy contract deployment code, and the service logic contract address”, “creating an initial management contract by executing the management contract code when a consensus on the management contract deployment transaction is passed” and “writing the proxy contract deployment code and the service logic contract address into the initial management contract, to obtain the management contract” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements that include:
“management contract code, proxy contract deployment code” and “executing the management contract code”. This is no more than “apply it” as “management contract code, proxy contract deployment code” and “executing the management contract code” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing contracts while performing associated wallet based transactions over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 8 and 19 recite “transmitting a management contract address corresponding to the management contract to a service server for generating a proxy contract deployment transaction carrying the management contract address when receiving a proxy contract deployment request associated with the first object for the service logic contract, wherein the proxy contract deployment transaction is configured for deploying the target proxy contract for the first object” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements that include:
“transmitting a management contract address […] to a service server”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmitting a management contract address […] to a service server” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing contracts while performing associated wallet based transactions over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 9 recites “receiving a service-logic-contract deployment transaction associated with the management object, wherein the service-logic-contract deployment transaction comprises service logic contract code; deploying the service logic contract by executing the service logic contract code when a consensus on the service-logic-contract deployment transaction is passed” and “transmitting the service logic contract address corresponding to the service logic contract to the management object when the service logic contract is successfully deployed” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements that include:
“service logic contract code” and “executing the service logic contract code”. This is no more than “apply it” as “service logic contract code” and “executing the service logic contract code” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing contracts while performing associated wallet based transactions over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 10 recites “acquiring a management object on-chain address corresponding to the management object”, “transmitting permission error prompt information to the management object when it is determined that the management object on-chain address does not have a management contract deployment permission”, “initiating a consensus request for the management contract deployment transaction to a consensus network when it is determined that the management object on-chain address has the management contract deployment permission, wherein the consensus network performs consensus processing on the management contract deployment transaction to obtain a consensus result” and “determining that the consensus on the management contract deployment transaction is passed when the consensus result is a consensus passing result” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements that include:
“transmitting permission error prompt information”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmitting permission error prompt information” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
“consensus network” and “the consensus network performs consensus processing”. This is no more than “apply it” as the ““consensus network” and “the consensus network performs consensus processing” are mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and are claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing contracts while performing associated wallet based transactions over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claim 11 recites “searching the one or more proxy contract addresses in the management contract based on the first object on-chain address corresponding to the first object” and “when finding a proxy contract address associated with the first object on-chain address corresponding to the first object in the one or more proxy contract addresses, performing following operations”, “acquiring, in the one or more proxy contract addresses, the proxy contract address associated with the first object on-chain address corresponding to the first object as the target proxy contract address through the management contract” and “when not finding the proxy contract address associated with the first object on-chain address corresponding to the first object in the one or more proxy contract addresses, transmitting proxy contract registration guidance information to the first object.” additional details which further narrow the abstract idea and additional elements that include:
“transmitting proxy contract registration guidance information”. This is no more than “apply it” as “transmitting proxy contract registration guidance information” is mere “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) and is claimed at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(3).
The claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount do no more than provide mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of using generic computer components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of managing contracts while performing associated wallet based transactions over a generic computer network with generic computing elements, and generic hardware.
Analysis of dependent claims 2-5 and 13-16 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROCK E TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-5626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/BROCK E TURK/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692