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 .
Status of Claims
The following is Office Action on the merits in response to the communication received on 6/16/26.
Claim status:
Amended claims: 1, 3-5 and 7-10
Canceled claims: 2
Added New claims: None
Pending claims: 1 and 3-10
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to statutory subject matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a system/apparatus. Therefore on its face, claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the 2019 PEG. However claim 1 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) and Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, which is a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. 101, as detailed below. Using the language of independent claim 1 to illustrate the claim recites the limitations of, (i) provide a full-process on-chain services for data resources, data products, and data asset circulation and transactions, along with query and control services; (ii) maintaining a blockchain account, (iii) maintaining an account data identity corresponding to the blockchain account, (iv) recording evidence of account transactions generated by a data assetization space, (v) recording blockchain data transaction certificates generated by the data assetization space, (vi) recording data asset certificates generated by a pledge financing subsystem, (vii) deploying and executing a permission smart contract based on the account data identity maintained by the account data identity manager, (viii) deploying and executing a operation smart contract based on the account data identity maintained by the account data identity manager, the data assetization space, communicatively connected to the blockchain subsystem, (ix) provide data assetization infrastructure and services; (x) provide services related to data asset pledge financing; wherein the system performs data assetization and the data asset custody through the blockchain subsystem and the data assetization space, and carries out the data asset pledge financing through the blockchain subsystem and the pledge financing subsystem under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) covers methods of organizing human activity –commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computers and generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a data product transaction processor, a data circulation service interface, a blockchain transaction certificate generator, an endogenous secure data gateway and a trusted data circulation security interface nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being directed to methods of organizing human activity –commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation under its BRI, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computers, then the limitations fall within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed.Reg 50 (“2019 PEG”).
This “methods of organizing human activity” is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A prong Two of the 2019 PEG. In particular claim 1 recites the following additional element of, a data product transaction processor, a data circulation service interface, a blockchain transaction certificate generator, an endogenous secure data gateway and a trusted data circulation security interface. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements – a data product transaction processor, a data circulation service interface, a blockchain transaction certificate generator, an endogenous secure data gateway and a trusted data circulation security interface.
The data product transaction processor, data circulation service interface, blockchain transaction certificate generator, endogenous secure data gateway and trusted data circulation security interface are recited at a high-level or generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that, they amount to no more than an instruction to “apply it” with a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a data product transaction processor, a data circulation service interface, a blockchain transaction certificate generator, an endogenous secure data gateway and a trusted data circulation security interface, provide a full-process on-chain services for data resources, data products, and data asset circulation and transactions, along with query and control services; maintaining a blockchain account, maintaining an account data identity corresponding to the blockchain account, recording evidence of account transactions generated by a data assetization space, recording blockchain data transaction certificates generated by the data assetization space, recording data asset certificates generated by a pledge financing subsystem, deploying and executing a permission smart contract based on the account data identity maintained by the account data identity manager, deploying and executing a operation smart contract based on the account data identity maintained by the account data identity manager, the data assetization space, communicatively connected to the blockchain subsystem, provide data assetization infrastructure and services; provide services related to data asset pledge financing; wherein the system performs data assetization and the data asset custody through the blockchain subsystem and the data assetization space, and carries out the data asset pledge financing through the blockchain subsystem and the pledge financing subsystem, amount to an instruction to “apply it” with a computer. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations individually. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed individually are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3-10 merely further explain the abstract idea.
When viewed individually the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1 and 3-10 are ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. The following claim limitations are treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: blockchain subsystem, data assetization space, and pledge financing subsystem, blockchain account manager, account data identity manager, pledge financing subsystem (Claim 1); authorized data catalog manager (Claim 3); and asset account manager (Claim 7).
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations blockchain subsystem, data assetization space, and pledge financing subsystem, blockchain account manager, account data identity manager, pledge financing subsystem (Claim 1); authorized data catalog manager (Claim 3); and asset account manager (Claim 7) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, (ii) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, or (iii) no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101
The Applicant states that “the amended claims now recite a specific, technical improvement to computer systems, implemented through concrete structural components such as managers, controllers, processors, repositories, execution engines, interfaces, and secure gateways.” (page 10). The Examiner disagrees with the sentence because the claim amendments further define and recite a more narrow abstract idea. Recording data with a blockchain is insignificant extra-solution activity. The applicant has not shown how the claims improve a computer or other technology, invoke a particular machine, transform matter, or provide more than a general link between the abstraction and the technology, MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e). The Examiner disagrees with the sentence that “The amended limitations introduce non-generic, technically rooted mechanisms that transform any potentially abstract idea into a practical, machine-implemented solution” (page 10). The claims are an improvement of the abstract idea only. They are a business solution to the business problem of data asset pledge financing. The Claims do not provide an improvement over prior systems and only add details to the abstract idea. They do not address a problem particular to computer networks and merely apply the abstract idea on general computer components. The amended claims make the abstract idea more specific by giving labels to software in storage. Applicant’s remarks about why these limitations provide a practical application fail to surface any technical improvement identified in the specification provided by the claimed blockchain-based system, therefore this is not an inventive concept and significantly more.
35 U.S.C. 112
The Examiner disagrees with the sentence that “All terms previously identified as potential nonce terms have been replaced with recognized structural names, each expressly supported by the originally filed specification” (page 11). For example, the terms “subsystem” and “manager” do not connote sufficient structure to rebut the presumption that the claim is not to be interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 112 as indicated above in the Office action.
35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments overcome the 103 Rejections, therefore, the Rejection(s) are moot.
Conclusion
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 MARLA HUDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights