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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 18, 2025.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haldenby (US 20170046693 A1; already of record in IDS) in view of Vijayvergia (US 11188907 B1; already of record in IDS), and in further view of Vann (US 20190097806 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 18, Haldenby teaches A computer-implemented method comprising (Haldenby: Abstract): A system comprising: one or more processors of a computing system; and at least one non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0006-0009): A non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0006-0009):
receiving, by a blockchain interface server, transaction information and dispute information from a blockchain network associated with a transaction, wherein the transaction information includes a plurality of attributes of the transaction, and wherein the dispute information includes identification of disputed attributes and proposed modifications by a user; identifying, by the blockchain interface server, one or more attributes of the transaction based on the transaction information and the dispute information (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0159-0160, 0124, 0151, 0153, 0162 teach(es) automatically resolving contracting disputes using data tracked within a hybrid blockchain ledger; system may receive notification of a dispute between multiple parties (i.e., participant of the transaction) to a contractual agreement (i.e., attributes of a transaction); in response to the detected dispute, system may generate corresponding notification data that identifies the dispute, the parties, and disputed evidence, and transmit the notification data to system as a notification of a dispute; hybrid blockchain ledger data structures may provide a centralized and transparent mechanism that records obligations enforceable on various parties to a contractual agreement, and further, that tracks data indicative of one or more transactions (i.e., dispute information for one or more attributes of a transaction from at least one participant of the transaction) initiated by the contracting parties in partial or total satisfaction of the recorded obligations); …; in response to …, searching, by the blockchain interface server, one or more blockchains for additional transactions including the identified attributes or the dispute information (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0124, 0122 teach(es) hybrid blockchain ledger data structures may provide a centralized and transparent mechanism that tracks (i.e., searching a shared ledger) data indicative of one or more transactions (i.e., list of other transactions that have, as common, the selected one or more attributes) initiated by the contracting parties (i.e., selected one or more attributes) in partial or total satisfaction of the recorded obligations).
However, Haldenby does not explicitly teach generating, by the blockchain interface server, data analytics based on the transaction information and the dispute information of the additional transactions in a user interface of a device, wherein the data analytics includes statistical data related to the identified attributes or the dispute information.
Vijayvergia from same or similar field of endeavor teaches generating, by the blockchain interface server, data analytics based on the transaction information and the dispute information of the additional transactions in a user interface of a device, wherein the data analytics includes statistical data related to the identified attributes or the dispute information (Vijayvergia: Col. 10, lines 29-55; 13/53-63 teach(es) The access module allows the device to download a copy of the blockchain from node and search the blockchain for the desired authorization data (i.e., other attributes for each transaction of the list of other transactions), implementing on the device an interactive user interface that can be output to a display and through which a user can enter search parameters and view (i.e., generating and displaying) authorization data retrieved from a blockchain (i.e., an analytics report of the other transactions); a hash function may be applied to the received authentication data associated with the first transaction and prior authorization data associated with one or more prior transactions (i.e., the list of other transactions) to provide a digest value).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Haldenby to incorporate the teachings of Vijayvergia for generating, by the blockchain interface server, data analytics based on the transaction information and the dispute information of the additional transactions in a user interface of a device, wherein the data analytics includes statistical data related to the identified attributes or the dispute information.
There is motivation to combine Vijayvergia into Haldenby because the blockchain can be used for storing data for transactions and searching for and identifying authorization data corresponding to a desired transaction and associated prior transactions (Vijayvergia: 14/30-56; 13/53-63).
However, the combination of Haldenby and Vijayvergia does not explicitly teach detecting, by the blockchain interface server, an unresolved dispute by identifying conflicting entries in differently time-stamped blocks of a blockchain for transaction events for at least one of the one or more attributes.
Vann from same or similar field of endeavor teaches detecting, by the blockchain interface server, an unresolved dispute by identifying conflicting entries in differently time-stamped blocks of a blockchain for transaction events for at least one of the one or more attributes (Vann: Paragraph(s) 0040-0042 teach(es) the system for resolving data discrepancies comprises a distributed timestamp server comprising a plurality of nodes configured to generate computational proof of record integrity and the chronological order of its use for content, trade, and/or as a currency of exchange through a peer-to-peer network. In some embodiments, when a blockchain is updated, a node in the distributed timestamp server system takes a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and broadcasts the hash to other nodes on the peer-to-peer network. The timestamp in the block serves to prove that the data existed at the time in order to get into the hash. In some embodiments, each block includes the previous timestamp in its hash, forming a chain, with each additional block reinforcing the ones before it).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Haldenby and Vijayvergia to incorporate the teachings of Vann for detecting, by the blockchain interface server, an unresolved dispute by identifying conflicting entries in differently time-stamped blocks of a blockchain for transaction events for at least one of the one or more attributes.
There is motivation to combine Vann into the combination of Haldenby and Vijayvergia because Vann’s teachings of using a distributed timestamp server or timestamp in the blocks would facilitate resolving data discrepancies (Vann: Paragraph(s) 0042).
Regarding Claims 2, 12, and 19, the combination of Haldenby, Vijayvergia, and Vann teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 18 above; and Haldenby further teaches wherein identifying the one or more attributes of the transaction, comprises: parsing, by the blockchain interface server, the received transaction information to extract specific data fields corresponding to the one or more attributes or the dispute information; and selecting, by the blockchain interface server, the extracted data fields for analysis based on predefined criteria or user-defined parameters (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0087 teach(es) client device may also parse data specifying prior transaction (e.g., as obtained from the current version of the hybrid blockchain ledger) and extract encrypted and/or hashed copies of rules engine and event trigger list. In certain aspects, client device may append the encrypted and/or hashed copies of rules engine and event trigger list to the data specifying transaction).
Regarding Claims 3, 13, and 20, the combination of Haldenby, Vijayvergia, and Vann teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 18 above; and Haldenby further teaches wherein searching the one or more blockchains for the additional transactions, comprises: retrieving, by the blockchain interface server, data from the one or more blockchains using a transaction identifier associated with the identified attributes or the dispute information; filtering, by the blockchain interface server, the retrieved data to identify transactions that match the identified attributes or the dispute information (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0140, 0151-0154 teach(es) to monitor and publicly record data indicative of activities by users that partially satisfy one or more of the obligations set forth in the contractual agreement between users; computer systems maintained by a neutral third party (e.g., system of clearinghouse entity) may access one or more data blocks of the exemplary hybrid blockchain ledger data structures described above, and may reconcile portions of the recorded contractual terms and conditions (e.g., as provided by users) and further, mediate disputes between users in an open and transparent manner; In response to user's input, client device may generate data that, among other things, identifies the party initiating the dispute (e.g., an identifier of user), the other contracting party (e.g., user), a corresponding device that initiated the dispute (e.g., an IP address or MAC address associated with client device), the one or more disputed terms of the contractual agreement); compiling, by the blockchain interface server, a list of additional transactions that include the identified attributes or the dispute information; and storing, by the blockchain interface server, the compiled list in a database (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0058, 0070, 0083 teach(es) transaction may include input data that references one or more prior transactions (e.g., transactions that transferred ownership of the tracked asset portion to user), and further, output data that includes instructions for transferring the tracked asset portion to one or more additional owners).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Haldenby, Vijayvergia, and Vann teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above; and Haldenby further teaches further comprising: analyzing, by the blockchain interface server, the received data to identify patterns related to the identified attributes or the dispute information, wherein the patterns include one or more of trends in consumer behavior, frequency of disputes, or variations in transaction amounts (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0023, 0072 teach(es) client devices may provide information associated with one or more actions or transactions involving the tracked assets (e.g., information identifying the actions or transaction, information identifying the assets, a public key, a digital signature, etc.) to peer systems, along with copies of the encrypted and/or hashed rules engines and lists of triggering events; the generated and stored list of triggering events may include information that specifies causal relationships between one or more of the established rules and one or more events that trigger an initiation of one or more corresponding regulated distributions, transactions, and/or actions associated with assets tracked within the hybrid public-private ledger (e.g., the triggering events)).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Haldenby, Vijayvergia, and Vann teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above; and Haldenby further teaches further comprising: encoding, by the blockchain interface server, the transaction information, wherein the encoding is triggered by pre-defined events including addition of a new transaction block to the one or more blockchains; and storing, by the blockchain interface server, the encoded transaction information in the one or more blockchains, wherein decoding of the encoded transaction information is permitted to nodes possessing corresponding decoding keys (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0023, 0039 teach(es) the one or more executed software applications may cause client devices to extract, from the one or more accessed blocks, a copy of an encrypted and/or hashed ownership/rules portion of the transaction block (e.g., including the identification a holder of a master key) and/or a copy of an encrypted and/or hashed master data block (e.g., encrypted using the master key and including rules permitting preconfigured and/or actions involving the tracked assets)).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Haldenby, Vijayvergia, and Vann teaches all the limitations of claims 5 and 15 above; and Haldenby further teaches further comprising: monitoring, by the blockchain interface server, transaction status updates from the blockchain network; and decoding, by the blockchain interface server, the transaction status for displaying in the user interface of the device (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0118-0120, 0127 teach(es) The sensor devices may, in some aspects, be configured to monitor the usage, location, status, etc., of corresponding ones of the connected devices, and may be configured to provide sensor data to corresponding ones of the processors; system, acting as a rules authority, may execute software applications that decrypt, access, and update portions of an encrypted list of triggering events (e.g., event triggers list) and an encrypted rules engine (e.g., rules engine) to include portions of the transmitted data, and may establish and maintain a new ledger block of a hybrid, blockchain ledger data structure to record and track the terms of the contractual agreement, as input into client device by user.).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, the combination of Haldenby, Vijayvergia, and Vann teaches all the limitations of claims 6 and 16 above; and Haldenby further teaches wherein monitoring the transaction status updates, further comprises: comparing, by the blockchain interface server, the transaction status with a predefined criteria to determine a requirement of additional processing; determining, by the blockchain interface server, the transaction status requires an input from the user; and transmitting, by the blockchain interface server, a notification to the user for the input, wherein a secure interface is generated for submission of the input (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0035, 0045, 0073, 0160-0162 teach(es) system may one or more of the rules and/or triggering events based on information received from user (e.g., as input provided to a web page or other graphical user interface (GUI) presented by client device and provided to system). For example, user may specify, as input to the web page or GUI presented by client device, one or more individuals that would receive portions of the tracked assets upon completion of one or more tasks and/or in the event of user's accidental death).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Haldenby, Vijayvergia, and Vann teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above; and Haldenby further teaches further comprising: entering, by the blockchain interface server, the input from the one or users to the one or more blockchains; determining, by the blockchain interface server, the input to the one or more blockchains indicates an unresolved dispute; and enabling, by the blockchain interface server, a smart contract to resolve the dispute based on predefined rules (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0147, 0149, 0162 teach(es) Client device may, in some instances, execute one or more software applications (e.g., one or more of the smart contract applications described above) that parse the electronic construction report and determine that user satisfied the obligations for transfer of the second $5,000 installment of funds; the accessed hybrid blockchain ledger data structure may include a first data block (e.g., established by system) that records the contractual terms provided to system by client device (e.g., including terms input by user into GUI generated by an executed smart contract application), and a second data block (e.g., established by system) that records the contractual terms provided to system by client device (e.g., including terms input by user into GUI generated by an executed smart contract application)).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Haldenby, Vijayvergia, and Vann teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above; and Haldenby further teaches further comprising: encoding and entering, by the blockchain interface server, the resolved dispute to the one or more blockchains (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0153-0154 teach(es) system may parse the decrypted rules engine to identify one or more dispute resolution procedures, which may include, but are not limited to, requesting that a neutral third party, such as clearinghouse entity, resolve the dispute between the first and second financial institutions regarding the transfer of the second $5,000 installment; software applications that generate one or more additional ledger blocks of the hybrid blockchain ledger data structure to memorialize the dispute between the dispute between the first and second financial institutions).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Haldenby, Vijayvergia, and Vann teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Haldenby further teaches wherein the dispute information is received as a speech-based input or a text-based input, and wherein the speech-based input or the text-based input is translated into a system command by a translator application program interface (Haldenby: Paragraph(s) 0021, 0030, 0167-0169, 0023 teach(es) client devices may include one or more input device(s) to allow the user to input information to client device (e.g., keypad, keyboard, touchscreen, voice activated control technologies, or any other type of known input device) (i.e., received as a speech-based input and/or a text-based input); servers may be configured to provide information to one or more application programs executed by client device (e.g., through a corresponding application programming interface (API)) (i.e., translating, by a translator application program interface (API)); system may execute software applications (i.e., a system command) that access locally stored data identifying each set of terms and conditions specified by users (i.e., the speech-based input and/or the text-based input); client devices may execute the one or more stored software application and to obtain (i.e., detect) data from the hybrid blockchain ledger that includes data identifying one or more tracked assets (i.e., predict requirements of one or more participants)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that “Haldenby (paragraphs [0124] and [0122]).. neither disclose analyzing differently time-stamped blocks to identify conflicting entries for the same transaction attribute, nor disclose performing a conditional search across one or more blockchains triggered by the detection of such blockchain-level inconsistencies,” examiner respectfully argues that the Vann reference teaches the features (Vann: Paragraph(s) 0040-0042).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pead (US 20180144153 A1) teaches Providing User Control Of Shared Personal Information.
Ibrahim (US 20190112050 A1) teaches Artificially Intelligent Flight Crew Systems And Methods, including artificial intelligence and speech recognition to index captured text into a list of possible outcomes.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571)270-1492. 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.
/CLAY C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights