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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-25 in the reply filed on March 20, 2026, is acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on February 14, 2025, is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 1-23 are directed towards a method, claim 24 is directed towards a manufacture, and claim 25 is directed towards a system. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite abstract ideas.
Per Claim 1: Claim 1, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of recording valid votes in a ledger. In particular, the claim recites confirming that an amplification assigned to a vote by a voter is less than a total amplification available to the voter. The method then records the vote including an identifier for the vote, an identifier for a preceding vote, an amplification assigned to the vote, and a vote choice. In other words, the claim recites both Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
in response to a first client of the plurality of clients submitting a vote in the poll, confirming, by at least one processor, whether an amplification that the first client has applied to the vote is less than an amplification available to the first client for the poll; and
recording, by the at least one processor, the vote of the first client in a distributed data store for the poll, wherein recording the vote comprises recording in a data structure of the distributed data store an identifier for the vote of the first client, an identifier for a preceding vote in the poll, the amplification applied to the vote by the first client, and a vote choice of the first client in the poll.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the claim recites the additional element of at least one processor. However, this additional element is used as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. In other words, it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, the claim recites the additional element of at least one processor. However, this additional element is used as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. In other words, it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 24: Claim 24 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1 and does so in the context of a computer-readable storage medium. However, it fails to recite any additional elements not already discussed above. Therefore, it also fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 25: Claim 25 recites abstract subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1 and does so in the context of a system. Claim 25 recites the following additional elements:
at least one processor; and
at least one storage medium having encoded thereon executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out a method of conducting a poll among a plurality of clients
However, these additional elements fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas as they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers.
Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claims 2-23: Claims 2-23 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the abstract idea of decreasing an amplification available to the voter based on the amplification applied to the vote, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 3 recites the abstract idea of modifying an amplification available to other voters for future polls based on the amplification applied to the vote, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 4 recites the abstract idea of identifying that a client submitted a tag associated with the poll, identifying that that a client interacting with a tag, and generating an order of display based on the interactions, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea detecting that the client has submitted a first vote for a first option of the poll and a second vote for a second option of the poll, confirming whether a first amplification applied to the first vote and a second amplification applied to the second vote are less than the amplification available to the first client, and recording the votes in a data store, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of confirming that the vote was cast in a valid time period, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of detecting deadline votes submitted by voters and recording a time condition based on the deadline votes, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of receiving a resource selection to assign to another client, selecting a subset of the resources to transfer to the another client, and transferring the subset of resources, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of detecting a request to transfer resources to a new client and transferring, after confirming that the request is less than a maximum resource available, the resources to the new client, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of detecting a request submitted from the first client to remove resources from the first client and a second client and transferring the resources from the first and second clients to the plurality of clients, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 11 recites the abstract idea of obtaining a voter choice and an amplification and updating shares of resources assigned to each client based on votes and amplification, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 12 recites the abstract idea of distributing resources among the plurality of clients and transferring shares of resources based on the amplification, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of distributing shares of resources based on a number of clients, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 14 recites the abstract idea of transferring a subset of shares from client to another, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 15 recites the abstract idea of detecting a selection of a client to which the shares of resources should be transferred, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea of identifying a winning client that received the greatest amplification and assigning the shares of resources to the winning client, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 17 recites the abstract idea of identifying a subset of clients selected in each vote, identifying, for each subset, a proportion of amplification associated with the client, and assigning shares of resources based on the proportion of the amplification, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea of sequencing the votes in a chain, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of a choice of each vote and an amplification and determining an outcome, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 20 recites the abstract idea of determining the outcome of the poll by identifying a winning client that won the greatest amplification and assigning shares of resources to the winning client, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 21 recites the abstract idea of identifying a subset of clients selected in each vote, identifying a proportion of amplification associated with each client, and assigning amounts of shares based on the proport, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 22 recites the abstract idea of identifying a public key for decrypting the vote and obtaining a choice of the vote and the amplification, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 23 recites the abstract idea of identifying a hash chain for each vote in the poll, generating a comparison between different hash chains, and determining whether to verify the votes based on the comparison, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 11-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0236881 to Ivanov et al. in view of NPL “Mastering Bitcoin” by Andreas M. Antonopoulos (dated January 2014) (hereinafter, “Mastering Bitcoin”).
Per Claim 1: Ivanov discloses:
A method of conducting a poll among a plurality of clients, the method comprising: (see Ivanov at ¶ 106: The methods, devices, architectures, processing, circuitry, and logic described above may be implemented in many different ways and in many different combinations of hardware and software.)
in response to a first client of the plurality of clients submitting a vote in the poll, confirming, by at least one processor, whether an amplification (e.g., vote-value) that the first client has applied to the vote is less than an amplification available to the first client for the poll; and (see Ivanov at ¶¶ 75-76: The BAL 400 may compare the intended recipient of the voter token to the identifier of the voter that requested the voter transaction (404). Through the comparison, the BAL 400 may confirm that the source of the vote-value underlying the voter transaction was owned by the voter that requested the voter transaction. In some cases, this may frustrate attempts to secretly cast votes using vote-value owned by another voter (or other entity). Additionally or alternatively, the BAL 400 may access the DLT record to verify that the voter token has not be previously used in another voter transaction (406). In other words, the BAL 400 may verify that the voter token is not “double spent.”)
recording, by the at least one processor, the vote of the first client in a distributed data store for the poll, wherein recording the vote comprises recording in a data structure of the distributed data store an identifier (e.g., signature) for the vote of the first client, [[an identifier for a preceding vote in the poll]], the amplification applied to the vote by the first client, and a vote choice of the first client in the poll. (see Ivanov at ¶ 19: However, in various implementations, the flow of tokens may be implemented through transaction recorded on the DLT record. Accordingly, a node may not necessarily pass a physical token or data representation to another node, but may record a passage of control/ownership of the token to a DLT record. See also ¶ 22: In various implementations throughout the disclosure, a voter token may include a data structure that uses cryptographic primitives to transfer vote value to a voter. The voter token may be recorded within a voter transaction. See also ¶ 44: The ACVL 200 may establish the authenticity of the target transaction by digitally signing the committed token using the private key. See also ¶ 30: The ballot may designate answers 130 by providing answer identifiers 132 for the answers. The answer identifiers may include public keys assigned to the answers 130. The public keys may allow voters to address a committed token 134 to an answer by encrypting the committed token (or portions thereof) with the public key of the answer.)
However, Ivanov fails to disclose but Mastering Bitcoin, an analogous art of blockchain, discloses:
an identifier for a preceding vote in the poll (see Mastering Bitcoin at p. 163: Each block also references a previous block, known as the parent block, through the “previous block hash” field in the block header. In other words, each block contains the hash of its parent inside its own header.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ivanov so that the blocks in the blockchain include the hash of a previous block, i.e., vote, using the techniques disclosed in Mastering Bitcoin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement a hash chain to form a blockchain between the recorded votes.
Per Claim 24: Claim 24 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1 and does so in the context of a computer-readable storage medium which Ivanov discloses (see ¶ 96: The memory 720 along with the processors 716 may support execution of the BAL 400. The memory 720 may further include applications and structures 766, for example, coded objects, templates, or other structures to support transaction verification, range-proof execution, and generation of validity tokens.)
Per Claim 25: Claim 25 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1 and does so in the context of a system. Claim 25 further recites:
An apparatus comprising: (see Ivanov at Abstract: A system may facilitate a distributed ledger technology (DLT) record based (for example, blockchain-based) auditing.)
at least one processor; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 87: The system logic may include processors 516, memory 520, and/or other circuitry.)
at least one storage medium having encoded thereon executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out a method of conducting a poll among a plurality of clients, the method comprising: (see Ivanov at ¶ 87: The system logic may include processors 516, memory 520, and/or other circuitry.)
Per Claim 2: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
decreasing, by the at least one processor, the amplification available to the first client for the poll based on the amplification applied to the vote by the first client. (see Ivanov at ¶ 45: The ACVL 200 may account for the target transaction by deducting the committed vote value from the voter vote-value received from the voter token (212).)
Per Claim 3: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
modifying, by the at least one processor, based on the amplification applied to the vote by the first client, a respective amplification available to other clients, of the plurality of clients, for future polls. (see Ivanov at ¶ 67: For example, vote-value in organizer tokens, voter tokens, and rest tokens may be retransferred after receipt, but vote-value in committed token may be disallowed for retransfer.)
Per Claim 5: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
detecting, by the at least one processor, that the first client has submitted a first vote for a first option of the poll and a second vote for a second option of the poll; (see Ivanov at ¶ 52: The ACVL 200 may determine another portion of the voter vote-value to commit to a completion answer (216). The ACVL 200 may send tokens to multiple answers to obfuscate which answers the voter 110 selects. In an example scenario, the ACVL 200 may send a committed token to each of the answers (some of which may be null, e.g., a committed token containing a zero-value vote-value) to frustrate attempts to determine the voter's voting pattern by monitoring which answers receive tokens. The ACVL 200 may generate completion committed tokens (e.g., committed tokens generated to complete determined distribution to the answers and/or ensure that multiple answers receive committed tokens from a voter) to ensure that multiple answers receive committed tokens from the voter. In some cases, multiple committed tokens may be transferred in a single transaction.)
confirming, by the at least one processor, whether a first amplification the first client has applied to the first vote and a second amplification the first client has applied to the second vote are collectively less than the amplification available to the first client for the poll; and (see Ivanov at ¶¶ 75-76: The BAL 400 may compare the intended recipient of the voter token to the identifier of the voter that requested the voter transaction (404). Through the comparison, the BAL 400 may confirm that the source of the vote-value underlying the voter transaction was owned by the voter that requested the voter transaction. In some cases, this may frustrate attempts to secretly cast votes using vote-value owned by another voter (or other entity). Additionally or alternatively, the BAL 400 may access the DLT record to verify that the voter token has not be previously used in another voter transaction (406). In other words, the BAL 400 may verify that the voter token is not “double spent.”)
recording, by the at least one processor, the first vote and the second vote of the first client in a the distributed data store for the poll, wherein recording the vote comprises recording in the data structure of the distributed data store a first identifier for the first vote and a second identifier for the second vote of the first client, [[the identifier for the preceding vote in the poll]], and the first amplification and the second amplification applied to the first vote and the second vote by the first client. (see Ivanov at ¶ 19: However, in various implementations, the flow of tokens may be implemented through transaction recorded on the DLT record. Accordingly, a node may not necessarily pass a physical token or data representation to another node, but may record a passage of control/ownership of the token to a DLT record. See also ¶ 22: In various implementations throughout the disclosure, a voter token may include a data structure that uses cryptographic primitives to transfer vote value to a voter. The voter token may be recorded within a voter transaction. See also ¶ 44: The ACVL 200 may establish the authenticity of the target transaction by digitally signing the committed token using the private key. See also ¶ 30: The ballot may designate answers 130 by providing answer identifiers 132 for the answers. The answer identifiers may include public keys assigned to the answers 130. The public keys may allow voters to address a committed token 134 to an answer by encrypting the committed token (or portions thereof) with the public key of the answer.)
However, Ivanov fails to disclose but Mastering Bitcoin discloses:
an identifier for a preceding vote in the poll (see Mastering Bitcoin at p. 163: Each block also references a previous block, known as the parent block, through the “previous block hash” field in the block header. In other words, each block contains the hash of its parent inside its own header.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ivanov so that the blocks in the blockchain include the hash of a previous block, i.e., vote, using the techniques disclosed in Mastering Bitcoin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement a hash chain to form a blockchain between the recorded votes.
Per Claim 6: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
wherein the vote of the first client is recorded responsive to confirming, by at least one processor, that a time at which the first client has applied to the vote satisfies a time condition until when the vote can be recorded for the poll. (see Ivanov at ¶ 68: In various implementations, the election may be ended in response to an event (e.g., a vote-value threshold achieved by an answer, a request from an organizer or other role, a final voter casting a vote, or other event) or at a designated time. The BOL 300 may establish conditions for ending the vote within the ballot.)
Per Claim 7: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
detecting, by the at least one processor, a plurality of deadline votes submitted by the plurality of clients on at least one time-condition until the vote for the poll can be recorded; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 68: In various implementations, the election may be ended in response to an event (e.g., a vote-value threshold achieved by an answer, a request from an organizer or other role, a final voter casting a vote, or other event) or at a designated time.)
recording, by the at least one processor, a time condition of the at least one time-condition based on the plurality of deadline votes indicating the time-condition. (see Ivanov at ¶ 68: The BOL 300 may establish conditions for ending the vote within the ballot.)
Per Claim 8: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 8 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
receiving, by the at least one processor, from the first client of the plurality of clients submitting a vote in the poll, a resource selection of resources to assign to at least one other client of the plurality of clients; (see Ivanov at ¶ 67: In some cases, the BOL 300 may designate voters through the transfer of vote-value via voter tokens. In other words, the reception of vote-value at a particular identifier entitles a vote. In some implementations, the system may disallow answers from retransferring (e.g., as second-round voters) vote-value received from voters in committed tokens. In other words, committed tokens would not be valid source tokens. For example, vote-value in organizer tokens, voter tokens, and rest tokens may be retransferred after receipt, but vote-value in committed token may be disallowed for retransfer. Further, the organizer may use one or more intermediaries to distribute vote-value to the voters. For example, the organizer may transfer vote-value to an intermediary which may transfer that vote-value (or a portion thereof) to a voter. Multiple layers of intermediaries may be used. In some implementations, any token, including committed tokens, containing vote-value may act as a source token. Received vote-value may be passed among the voters and answers until the election ends.)
selecting, by the at least one processor, based on the resource selection, a subset of the resources to transfer to the at least one other client of the plurality of clients; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 46: For example, the balloting system may be applied in systems using an unspent outputs transaction model, an account transaction model, or other transaction model. In an example system having an unspent outputs transaction model, the ACVL 200 may generate a rest token (e.g., with the same structure as the committed token) that confers the remainder vote-value, e.g., the voter vote-value with the committed vote-value deducted, back to the voter 110. The rest token may be included in the target transaction. In some cases, where the committed token transfers all remaining vote-value, the rest token may include a token holding a null vote-value.)
transferring, by the at least one processor, the subset of the resources to the at least one other client. (see Ivanov at ¶ 24: Voters may send vote-value to answers using committed tokens 134. In various implementations throughout the disclosure, committed tokens may contain a cryptographic commitment to the vote-value conferred in the committed token.)
Per Claim 9: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
detecting, by the at least one processor, a request submitted by the first client to transfer resources from the first client to at least one new client; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 67: For example, vote-value in organizer tokens, voter tokens, and rest tokens may be retransferred after receipt, but vote-value in committed token may be disallowed for retransfer. Further, the organizer may use one or more intermediaries to distribute vote-value to the voters.)
transferring, by the at least one processor, responsive to confirming that the resources in the request is less than a maximum resource available to the first client, the resources from the first client to the at least one new client. (see Ivanov at ¶¶ 75-76: The BAL 400 may compare the intended recipient of the voter token to the identifier of the voter that requested the voter transaction (404). Through the comparison, the BAL 400 may confirm that the source of the vote-value underlying the voter transaction was owned by the voter that requested the voter transaction. In some cases, this may frustrate attempts to secretly cast votes using vote-value owned by another voter (or other entity). Additionally or alternatively, the BAL 400 may access the DLT record to verify that the voter token has not be previously used in another voter transaction (406). In other words, the BAL 400 may verify that the voter token is not “double spent.” See also ¶ 24: Voters may send vote-value to answers using committed tokens 134. In various implementations throughout the disclosure, committed tokens may contain a cryptographic commitment to the vote-value conferred in the committed token.)
Per Claim 11: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
recording the vote in the distributed data store comprises recording the vote in a cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes for the poll, the cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes being stored in the distributed data store for the poll; and the method further comprises: (see Ivanov at ¶ 15: Distributed ledger technologies (DLTs), backed by blockchain and other cryptographic structures provide a platform by which transactions may be recorded with protection from post-recording tampering. In balloting systems, including private organization voting (e.g., shareholder voting, member voting, employee voting or other private organization elections), municipal/state/federal elections, legislative voting, surveying, polling, or other question-answer systems DLTs allow for a verifiable record (e.g., a virtual paper trail) including where elections are performed remotely (e.g., over a telecommunications network). Further, digital signatures and other digital identity techniques allow for secure identification of voters, ballot organizers, and/or auditors.)
in accordance with an order of votes indicated by the cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes, obtaining, by the at least one processor, for each vote in the poll, a choice of the vote by a client of the plurality of clients and an amplification applied to the vote by the client submitting the vote; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: The vote-value received by the answers may be totaled to determine the winning answers in accord with conditions for victory setup by the ballot.)
updating, by the at least one processor, shares of resources assigned to each client of the plurality of clients, based on choices of votes and the amplification applied to each vote in the poll. (see Ivanov at ¶ 32: In response to voter input, the ACVL 200 may determine a portion of the received vote-value to commit to a target answer (208). For example, in a binary vote-value system, the ACVL 200 may commit the entire vote value to the target answer. In an integer system, a discrete sum (which may be less than the entirety) may be committed by the ACVL 200. Once a commitment has be determined, the ACVL 200 may generate a committed token that binds the voter 110 to the determined vote-value commitment. The committed token 134 may implement a cryptographic commitment to bind the voter.)
Per Claim 12: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 11, from which claim 12 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
wherein each vote in the poll is associated with shares of resources, and wherein updating the shares of resources comprises: (see Ivanov at ¶ 23: The voters 110 may receive the voter tokens 114. The voters 110 may distribute the vote-value in the voter tokens to the answers 130.)
distributing, by the at least one processor, the resources among the plurality of clients; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 22: The organizer may distribute the established vote-value in the organizer token 124 to the voters via voter tokens 114.)
transferring, by the at least one processor, among the plurality of clients, shares of the resources based on the amplification applied to the votes in the poll. (see Ivanov at ¶ 24: Voters may send vote-value to answers using committed tokens 134. In various implementations throughout the disclosure, committed tokens may contain a cryptographic commitment to the vote-value conferred in the committed token.)
Per Claim 13: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 12, from which claim 13 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
wherein the shares of the resources among the plurality of clients are distributed based a number of clients of the plurality of clients. (see Ivanov at ¶ 70: The vote-value conferred to the voters (e.g., conferred vote-value) may be deducted from the organizer vote-value established by the organizer token (314). The transaction may further transfer a rest token back to the organizer, which may allow the organizer to advance to a voter role or continue to distribute vote-value to voters with the remaining vote-value in the rest token.)
Per Claim 14: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 11, from which claim 14 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
transferring, by the at least one processor, from a first client of the plurality of clients to which the shares of resources were allocated, a subset of the shares of resources to at least one different client of the plurality of clients. (see Ivanov at ¶ 67: For example, vote-value in organizer tokens, voter tokens, and rest tokens may be retransferred after receipt, but vote-value in committed token may be disallowed for retransfer. Further, the organizer may use one or more intermediaries to distribute vote-value to the voters. For example, the organizer may transfer vote-value to an intermediary which may transfer that vote-value (or a portion thereof) to a voter. Multiple layers of intermediaries may be used. In some implementations, any token, including committed tokens, containing vote-value may act as a source token. Received vote-value may be passed among the voters and answers until the election ends.)
Per Claim 15: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 14, from which claim 15 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
detecting, by the at least one processor, from the first client of the plurality of clients, a client selection of the at least one different client of the plurality of clients to which the subset of the shares of resources should be transferred. (see Ivanov at ¶ 67: For example, vote-value in organizer tokens, voter tokens, and rest tokens may be retransferred after receipt, but vote-value in committed token may be disallowed for retransfer. Further, the organizer may use one or more intermediaries to distribute vote-value to the voters. For example, the organizer may transfer vote-value to an intermediary which may transfer that vote-value (or a portion thereof) to a voter. Multiple layers of intermediaries may be used. In some implementations, any token, including committed tokens, containing vote-value may act as a source token. Received vote-value may be passed among the voters and answers until the election ends.)
Per Claim 16: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 11, from which claim 16 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
identifying, by the at least one processor, a winning client of the plurality of clients that received a greatest amplification based on the amplification applied to each vote in the poll; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: The vote-value received by the answers may be totaled to determine the winning answers in accord with conditions for victory setup by the ballot. For example, conditions may include receiving more vote-value (e.g., a plurality of the vote value) than other answers, receiving a majority of the vote-value, exceeding a defined vote value threshold, or other conditions. Further, multiple conditions may be combined.)
assigning, by the at least one processor, the shares of resources to the winning client. (see Ivanov at ¶ 32: In response to voter input, the ACVL 200 may determine a portion of the received vote-value to commit to a target answer (208).)
Per Claim 17: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 11, from which claim 17 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
identifying, by the at least one processor, a subset of clients of the plurality of clients selected in each vote in the poll; (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: The voters may then assign the received vote-value to one or more answers.)
identifying, by the at least one processor, for each of the subset of clients, a proportion of the amplification associated with the client; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: The vote-value received by the answers may be totaled to determine the winning answers in accord with conditions for victory setup by the ballot. For example, conditions may include receiving more vote-value (e.g., a plurality of the vote value) than other answers, receiving a majority of the vote-value, exceeding a defined vote value threshold, or other conditions. Further, multiple conditions may be combined.)
assigning, by the at least one processor, the shares of resources to each of the subset of clients based on the proportion of the amplification. (see Ivanov at ¶ 32: In response to voter input, the ACVL 200 may determine a portion of the received vote-value to commit to a target answer (208).)
Per Claim 18: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 11, from which claim 18 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
wherein the cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes is a hash chain. (see Ivanov at ¶ 46: The balloting system, including the ACVL 200, the BOL 300, and the ballot audit logic (BAL) 400, may operate in a variety of different DLT environments.)
Per Claim 19: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 19 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
recording the vote in the distributed data store comprises recording the vote in a cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes for the poll, the cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes being stored in the distributed data store for the poll; and the method further comprises: (see Ivanov at ¶ 15: Distributed ledger technologies (DLTs), backed by blockchain and other cryptographic structures provide a platform by which transactions may be recorded with protection from post-recording tampering. In balloting systems, including private organization voting (e.g., shareholder voting, member voting, employee voting or other private organization elections), municipal/state/federal elections, legislative voting, surveying, polling, or other question-answer systems DLTs allow for a verifiable record (e.g., a virtual paper trail) including where elections are performed remotely (e.g., over a telecommunications network). Further, digital signatures and other digital identity techniques allow for secure identification of voters, ballot organizers, and/or auditors.)
in accordance with an order of votes indicated by the cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes, obtaining, by the at least one processor, for each vote in the poll, a choice of the vote by a client of the plurality of clients and an amplification applied to the vote by the client submitting the vote; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: The vote-value received by the answers may be totaled to determine the winning answers in accord with conditions for victory setup by the ballot. For example, conditions may include receiving more vote-value (e.g., a plurality of the vote value) than other answers, receiving a majority of the vote-value, exceeding a defined vote value threshold, or other conditions. Further, multiple conditions may be combined.)
determining, by the at least one processor, an outcome of the poll based on choices of votes and the amplification applied to each vote in the poll. (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: The vote-value received by the answers may be totaled to determine the winning answers in accord with conditions for victory setup by the ballot. For example, conditions may include receiving more vote-value (e.g., a plurality of the vote value) than other answers, receiving a majority of the vote-value, exceeding a defined vote value threshold, or other conditions. Further, multiple conditions may be combined.)
Per Claim 20: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 19, from which claim 20 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
determining, by the at least one processor, the outcome of the poll by identifying a winning client of the plurality of clients that received a greatest amplification based on the amplification applied to each vote in the poll; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: The vote-value received by the answers may be totaled to determine the winning answers in accord with conditions for victory setup by the ballot. For example, conditions may include receiving more vote-value (e.g., a plurality of the vote value) than other answers, receiving a majority of the vote-value, exceeding a defined vote value threshold, or other conditions. Further, multiple conditions may be combined.)
assigning, by the at least one processor, shares of resources to the winning client. (see Ivanov at ¶ 32: In response to voter input, the ACVL 200 may determine a portion of the received vote-value to commit to a target answer (208). For example, in a binary vote-value system, the ACVL 200 may commit the entire vote value to the target answer. In an integer system, a discrete sum (which may be less than the entirety) may be committed by the ACVL 200. Once a commitment has be determined, the ACVL 200 may generate a committed token that binds the voter 110 to the determined vote-value commitment.)
Per Claim 21: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 19, from which claim 21 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
identifying a subset of clients of the plurality of clients selected in each vote in the poll; (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: The voters may then assign the received vote-value to one or more answers. The vote-value received by the answers may be totaled to determine the winning answers in accord with conditions for victory setup by the ballot.)
identifying for each of the subset of clients, a proportion of the amplification associated with the client; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: For example, conditions may include receiving more vote-value (e.g., a plurality of the vote value) than other answers, receiving a majority of the vote-value, exceeding a defined vote value threshold, or other conditions. Further, multiple conditions may be combined.)
assigning amounts of shares to each of the subset of clients based on the proportion of the amplification. (see Ivanov at ¶ 32: In response to voter input, the ACVL 200 may determine a portion of the received vote-value to commit to a target answer (208). For example, in a binary vote-value system, the ACVL 200 may commit the entire vote value to the target answer. In an integer system, a discrete sum (which may be less than the entirety) may be committed by the ACVL 200. Once a commitment has be determined, the ACVL 200 may generate a committed token that binds the voter 110 to the determined vote-value commitment.)
Per Claim 22: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 19, from which claim 22 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
identifying, by the at least one processor, for each vote in the poll, a public key for decrypting the respective choice of the vote by the client of the plurality of clients and the amplification applied to the vote by the client submitting the vote; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 20: The identifiers may include public keys (e.g., for use in asymmetric encryption algorithms) associated with individual members of the various roles.)
obtaining, by the at least one processor, for each vote in the poll, a choice of the vote by a client of the plurality of clients and the amplification applied to the vote by the client submitting the vote. (see Ivanov at ¶ 31: The vote-value received by the answers may be totaled to determine the winning answers in accord with conditions for victory setup by the ballot.)
Per Claim 23: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 19, from which claim 23 depends. Ivanov further discloses:
identifying, by the at least one processor, in the cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes provided by the client, a hash chain comprising a respective hash for each vote in the poll, wherein the respective hash is associated with a respective choice of the vote by a respective client of the plurality of clients and a respective amplification applied to the vote by the respective client submitting the vote; (see Ivanov at ¶ 32: As one illustrative example, the committed token 134 may contain a hash of the committed vote-value. In various implementations throughout the disclosure, committed vote-value may include a determined amount of vote-value that is intended to be transferred in a transaction.)
generating, by the at least one processor, a comparison between the hash chain of the cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes of the client and a different hash chain of a different cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes provided by a different client; and (see Ivanov at ¶ 32: Accordingly, any party asserting that the vote-value committed by the ACVL 200 is a particular amount can be checked by hashing their asserted amount. If the hashed output does not match the hash in the committed token, the asserted amount is inaccurate.)
determining, by the at least one processor, based on the comparison, whether to verify the cryptographically-sealed sequence of votes. (see Ivanov at ¶ 32: Accordingly, any party asserting that the vote-value committed by the ACVL 200 is a particular amount can be checked by hashing their asserted amount. If the hashed output does not match the hash in the committed token, the asserted amount is inaccurate.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0058238 to Milley et al.
Per Claim 4: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. However, the combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin fails to disclose but Milley, an analogous art of voting, discloses:
identifying, by the at least one processor, that one or more of the plurality of clients submitted one or more tags associated with the poll; (see Milley at ¶ 24: Selecting one of the questions 120 may bring up a question for viewing, voting 210 regarding answers to the question, rating 220 the content or quality of the question and user, and commenting 230 as shown in FIG. 2.)
identifying, by the at least one processor, that one or more of the plurality of clients submitted one or more interactions with the one or more tags associated with the poll; and (see Milley at ¶ 24: Selecting one of the questions 120 may bring up a question for viewing, voting 210 regarding answers to the question, rating 220 the content or quality of the question and user, and commenting 230 as shown in FIG. 2.)
generating, by the at least one processor, an order of display of the one or more tags based on the one or more interactions. (see Milley at ¶ 24: A graphical vote bar 240 may show the weighted breakdown of votes, and may update dynamically with each vote cast (alternatively, the application may show an image of the choice with the most votes and/or a textual display of the vote count or %). A vote percentage, or absolute vote count, may be superimposed on this bar or displayed in other ways. The end user may make their vote selection, enter an optional comment, optionally rate the quality of the question, and this feedback 250 may be added to poll.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ivanov so that a graphical interface depicting the vote tally as well as comments and ratings using the techniques disclosed in Milley. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable participants to graphically view the results of the poll.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0210710 to Glennon.
Per Claim 10: The combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin discloses the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. However, the combination of Ivanov and Mastering Bitcoin fails to disclose but Glennon, an analogous art of ownership rights management, discloses:
detecting, by the at least one processor, a request submitted by the first client to remove shares of resources from the first client to remove the resources from a second client of the plurality of clients; and (see Glennon at ¶ 47: If any of the users do not sign, for whatever reason, the system is configured so that the Intellectual Property for that user can be redistributed, for example among the other users or reassigned to the platform owner. That is, the principal user or users 2a triggers a ‘not signed’ state within the system, and provides details of the non-signing user or users when prompted by the system. This causes the system to withdraw the previously generated documents and reissue fresh/new documents that reflect the redistribution of the Intellectual Property among the other users, or the reassignment to the platform owner.)
transferring, by the at least one processor, the shares of the resources from the first client and the second client to the plurality of clients. (see Glennon at ¶ 47: If any of the users do not sign, for whatever reason, the system is configured so that the Intellectual Property for that user can be redistributed, for example among the other users or reassigned to the platform owner. That is, the principal user or users 2a triggers a ‘not signed’ state within the system, and provides details of the non-signing user or users when prompted by the system. This causes the system to withdraw the previously generated documents and reissue fresh/new documents that reflect the redistribution of the Intellectual Property among the other users, or the reassignment to the platform owner.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Ivanov so that vote-value is reassigned from anyone who does not agree to the system using the techniques disclosed in Glennon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to ensure only those voters interested will have a right to vote.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0153332 discloses a voting system and a voting method by which electronic voting can be securely conducted are provided. A voting system includes: a secret sharing unit that generates a plurality of shares from voting information by secret sharing; a plurality of share storage units that store the plurality of shares in a distributed manner; a first blockchain processing unit that transmits, to a node managing a blockchain, transaction data of voting conducted using the voting information in order to record the transaction data in the blockchain; and a secure computation unit that performs secure computation for analyzing the voting by using the shares stored in a distributed manner.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0051111 discloses systems and methods for automatically redistributing a user's accumulated rewards based on, in one example, a change in loyalty by the user. In one example, a method for redistributing accumulated rewards on a loyalty platform in a single click comprises displaying a selectable interface element on a user device, wherein the selectable interface element indicates an accumulated reward from a first business in a rewards account of the user on the loyalty platform, and at least a second business, responding to selection of the selectable interface element by purchasing an amount of shares of stock in the second business using the accumulated reward, and presenting a notification to the user indicating that redistribution of the accumulated reward has been performed. The disclosed systems and methods may enable a reduction in delays and user frustration associated with conventional approaches for rebalancing a portfolio of accumulated rewards.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0053115 discloses a method of providing a game show that includes broadcasting performances from a plurality of contestants to audience members and receiving lists from the audience members. Each list received contains the identifiers of at least two contestants. These lists are tabulated and a vote is recorded for a contestant each time the identifier for that contestant appears on a list. The contestants are then ranked in order of the number of votes each received, with the contestant who received the least votes ranked first. The contestant with the most votes and/or the contestant with the least votes are named the winner. The group of audience members who submitted lists that rank the contestants in order of who received the fewest votes to who received the most votes also win.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILESH B KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7083. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Monday-Friday, alternating Fridays off.
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.
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights