DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
This is first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 12/13/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,217,081. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it recites almost same and equivalent features. Since U.S. Patent No. 12,217,081 and the claims at issue of the present application perform similar functions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,217,081 by omitting or rearranging of certain features. It is well settled that omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karison, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963) Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Thus, omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based on consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “depositing an instruction onto a distributed ledger by a first entity; processing first data based on the instruction on the distributed ledger by a second entity; depositing, by the second entity, the processed first data onto the distributed ledger; after the second entity deposits the processed first data, the second entity notifying the first entity by writing to one or more data blocks on the distributed ledger associated with the first entity that the second entity has completed the processing; and verifying the processed first data has been processed according to the instruction by the first entity, wherein the distributed ledger is configured to act as an escrow such that the second entity receives payment automatically after the verifying.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “distributed ledger”, “blocks”, and “automatically” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical sales activities or behaviors, because the entities including first and second entities interact and process data or information for transaction including payment.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A method comprising:”, “distributed ledger”, “blocks”, and “automatically”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, 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 the Step 2B, the claims 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 in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “depositing a first data, a first instruction, and a second instruction onto a distributed ledger by a first entity; processing first data based on the first instruction stored on the distributed ledger by a second entity; depositing, by the second entity, processed first data onto the distributed ledger; processing second data based on the second instruction stored on the distributed ledger by a third entity; depositing, by the third entity, processed second data onto the distributed ledger; after the third entity deposits the processed second data, the third entity notifying the first entity by writing to one or more data blocks on the distributed ledger associated with the first entity that the second entity and the third entity has completed the processing; and verifying the processed first data and the processed second data has been processed according to the first instruction and the second instruction, respectively, by the first entity, wherein the distributed ledger is configured to act as an escrow such that the second entity or the third entity receives payment automatically after the verifying.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “distributed ledger”, “blocks”, and “automatically” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical sales activities or behaviors, because the entities including first and second entities interact and process data or information for transaction including payment.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A method comprising:”, “distributed ledger”, “blocks”, and “automatically”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, 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 the Step 2B, the claims 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 in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “depositing, by a first entity using a first process engine, at least one instruction onto one or more data blocks of a distributed ledger implemented to have a plurality of data blocks connected by way of logical links in a sequential chain, the at least one instruction being associated with information deposited onto the one or more data blocks, the deposited information comprising at least one of data or metadata utilizable by a second entity, using a computing application, to perform one or more operations according to the at least one instructions as related to a first step in a process being managed by the first entity; reading one or more results deposited onto the one or more blocks of the distributed ledger, the one or more results having been generated by the second entity according to the at least one instruction deposited by the first entity; and utilizing, by the first entity, at least a portion of the one or more results deposited by the second entity to confirm that one or more processes associated with the deposited information are performed by the second entity according to the at least one instruction, wherein rules and conditions associated with managing the one or more processes are stored on at least one block of the distributed ledger, and wherein the distributed ledger is configured to act as an escrow such that the second entity receives payment automatically after the confirming.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “process engine”, “blocks”, “distributed ledger”, “logical links”, “computing application”, and “automatically” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical sales activities or behaviors, because the entities including first and second entities interact and process data or information for transaction including payment.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A computer-implemented method comprising:”, “process engine”, “blocks”, “distributed ledger”, “logical links”, “computing application”, and “automatically”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, 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 the Step 2B, the claims 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 in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20:
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 include additional limitations, for example, “block” and “distributed ledger” (Claims 2 and 8); “distributed ledger” (Claims 3 and 9); “distributed ledger” (Claims 4 and 10); “blocks” and “distributed ledger” (Claims 5 and 11); “blocks” and “distributed ledger” (Claims 6 and 12); “distributed ledger” (Claim 13); “process engine” and “distributed ledger” (Claim 14); “process engine”, “block”, and “distributed ledger” (Claim 16); “process engine”, “smart contract”, and “distributed ledger” (Claim 17); “distributed ledger” (Claim 18); “block” and “distributed ledger” (Claim 19); and “block” and “distributed ledger” (Claim 20), but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they require no more than generic computer structures or signals to be executed, and do not recite any Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or Improvements to any other technology or technical field.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation or implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asthana (US 20190268277 A1; already of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Asthana teaches A method comprising (Asthana: Abstract):
depositing an instruction onto a distributed ledger by a first entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0004-0006 teach(es) the computer-implemented method can also comprise adding, by the system, first event data indicative of a first event associated with the one or more computing resources into a first data block of a blockchain dataset for the cloud-based computing platform); processing first data based on the instruction on the distributed ledger by a second entity; depositing, by the second entity, the processed first data onto the distributed ledger (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0041-0042, 0048-0049, 0062, 0096, 0004-0006, 0058 teach(es) the blockchain can be a sequence of data blocks that corresponds to a sequence of the one or more events for the cloud-based computing platform. In addition, an orchestration (synchronization) engine can manage computing resources and/or workflows in a cloud computing environment (communications network). Also, the blockchain component (first party) can add event data (metadata or instruction deposited by the first party) indicative of an event associated with a contract transaction (e.g., a smart contract transaction) between the one or more computing resources into a blockchain dataset (data block) for the cloud-based computing platform, and one or more events associated with the multiple parties (the second party or second process engine) and/or the multiple resources can be managed through one or more contract transactions (e.g., one or more smart contract transactions) (performing the instruction by the second party) that are persisted in a blockchain ledger. Therefore, the multiple parties can obtain a consistent view (confirming that the processes are performed) of a cloud-based computing platform. Furthermore, a rate (progress state of processes) of addition of one or more events into the blockchain dataset may vary according to risk level data indicative of a risk level associated with the cloud-based computing platform during a defined period of time, and a first risk level can be associated with a transaction that is performed infrequently by a virtual machine of the cloud-based computing platform during normal usage (e.g., a transaction is performed every minute that includes information regarding a running state of a central processing unit and/or memory). Still furthermore, with the cloud resource digital ledger component, all parties can be in sync about information associated with the cloud-based computing platform such as, for example, which patches are installed on the cloud-based computing platform, if patches need to be removed from the cloud-based computing platform because of one or more problems with the patches, etc.); after the second entity deposits the processed first data, the second entity notifying the first entity by writing to one or more data blocks on the distributed ledger associated with the first entity that the second entity has completed the processing (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042, 0049, 0060, 0063 teach(es) the cloud resource digital ledger component (first party) can store a global state and/or one or more event transactions (instruction) for one or more cloud resources. In addition, the orchestration engine, the support provider device, the application provider device, the service provider device, the cloud provider device and/or the customer device (second party) can employ a blockchain dataset for reflection of a global state and/or one or more event transactions (results) associated with the cloud-based computing platform. In addition, event data or event data (instruction) is added to a blockchain, and the events may include requests associated with the cloud-based computing platform. A “request” must include one party to request the event and another party(s) to perform the request. And results should be generated by performing the “request” through contract transaction (smart contract)); and verifying the processed first data has been processed according to the instruction by the first entity, wherein the distributed ledger is configured to act as an escrow such that the second entity receives payment automatically after the verifying (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0049, 0063 teach(es) content stored in the blockchain dataset and/or a rate of addition to the blockchain dataset can be controlled by the blockchain component. Furthermore, a rate of addition of one or more events into the blockchain dataset may vary according to risk level data indicative of a risk level (results) associated with the cloud-based computing platform during a defined period of time. In addition, the system can employ one or more contracts to securely add one or more event transactions to a blockchain data set.. a chain code to verify that one or more events (e.g., one or more transactions) are valid (utilizing the results to confirm that the process are performed)).
Regarding Claim 7, Asthana teaches A method comprising (Asthana: Abstract):
depositing a first data, a first instruction, and a second instruction onto a distributed ledger by a first entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0004-0006 teach(es) the computer-implemented method can also comprise adding, by the system, first event data indicative of a first event associated with the one or more computing resources into a first data block of a blockchain dataset for the cloud-based computing platform); processing first data based on the first instruction stored on the distributed ledger by a second entity; depositing, by the second entity, processed first data onto the distributed ledger (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0041-0042, 0048-0049, 0062, 0096, 0004-0006, 0058, as stated above with respect to claim 1); processing second data based on the second instruction stored on the distributed ledger by a third entity; depositing, by the third entity, processed second data onto the distributed ledger (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0041-0042, 0048-0049, 0062, 0096, 0004-0006, 0058, as stated above with respect to claim 1); after the third entity deposits the processed second data, the third entity notifying the first entity by writing to one or more data blocks on the distributed ledger associated with the first entity that the second entity and the third entity has completed the processing (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042, 0049, 0060, 0063, as stated above with respect to claim 1); and verifying the processed first data and the processed second data has been processed according to the first instruction and the second instruction, respectively, by the first entity, wherein the distributed ledger is configured to act as an escrow such that the second entity or the third entity receives payment automatically after the verifying (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0049, 0063, as stated above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Asthana teaches wherein the instruction is deposited onto a data block of the distributed ledger, and wherein the second entity monitors the data block (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0006, 0054 teach(es) the learning component can monitor the cloud-based computing platform to facilitate learning of one or more features and/or information related to one or more resources associated with the cloud-based computing platform).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Asthana teaches wherein the distributed ledger contains constraints on how data on the distributed ledger can be utilized (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042 teach(es) The one or more computing resources can be computing resources for a virtual machine, storage, middleware, other hardware and/or other software. One or more events associated with the management of the one or more computing resources can be added into a blockchain. For instance, event data indicative of an event associated with a contract transaction (e.g., a smart contract transaction) between the one or more computing resources can be added into the blockchain).
Regarding Claim 4, Asthana teaches wherein one or more records are maintained on the distributed ledger, the one or more records comprising: the instruction and the processed first data (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042 teach(es) The blockchain can be a sequence of data blocks that corresponds to a sequence of the one or more events for the cloud-based computing platform. In an aspect, the one or more events can be added to the blockchain based on risk management associated with the cloud-based computing platform and/or one or more other factors associated with the cloud-based computing platform).
Regarding Claim 5, Asthana teaches wherein the instruction and the processed first data are stored in separate data blocks on the distributed ledger (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0076 teach(es) second event data indicative of a second event associated with the one or more computing resources is added, by the system (e.g., by blockchain component), into a second data block of the blockchain dataset for the cloud-based computing platform).
Regarding Claim 6, Asthana teaches wherein the first entity monitors the one or more data blocks on the distributed ledger for the notifying by the second entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0030 teach(es) Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service).
Regarding Claim 10, Asthana teaches wherein one or more records are maintained on the distributed ledger, the one or more records comprising: the first instruction, the second instruction, the processed first data, and the processed second data (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042 teach(es) The blockchain can be a sequence of data blocks that corresponds to a sequence of the one or more events for the cloud-based computing platform. In an aspect, the one or more events can be added to the blockchain based on risk management associated with the cloud-based computing platform and/or one or more other factors associated with the cloud-based computing platform).
Regarding Claim 11, Asthana teaches wherein the first instruction, the processed first data, the second instruction, and the processed second data are stored in separate data blocks on the distributed ledger (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0076 teach(es) second event data indicative of a second event associated with the one or more computing resources is added, by the system (e.g., by blockchain component), into a second data block of the blockchain dataset for the cloud-based computing platform).
Regarding Claim 12, Asthana teaches wherein the first entity monitors the distributed ledger for the one or more data blocks of the notifying by the second entity or the third entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0030 teach(es) Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service).
Regarding Claim 13, Asthana teaches wherein the distributed ledger is used to synchronize processing between the first entity, the second entity, and the third entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0030, 0048, 0100, 0042 teach(es) Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service; the blockchain component can add event data indicative of an event associated with a contract transaction (e.g., a smart contract transaction) between the one or more computing resources into a blockchain dataset for the cloud-based computing platform; the terms “component,” “system,” “platform,” “interface,” and the like, can refer to and/or can include a computer-related entity or an entity related to an operational machine with one or more specific functionalities; One or more events associated with the multiple parties and/or the multiple resources can be managed through one or more contract transactions (e.g., one or more smart contract transactions) that are persisted in a blockchain ledger).
Regarding Claim 14, Asthana teaches wherein the second entity utilizes a process engine stored on the distributed ledger to perform the first instruction (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042, 0048-0049 teach(es) One or more events associated with the multiple parties and/or the multiple resources can be managed through one or more contract transactions (e.g., one or more smart contract transactions) that are persisted in a blockchain ledger).
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) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asthana (US 20190268277 A1; already of record in IDS) in view of Dutta (US 20190392164 A1; already of record in IDS).
Regarding Claim 15, Asthana teaches A computer-implemented method comprising (Asthana: Abstract):
depositing, by a first entity using a first process engine, at least one instruction onto one or more data blocks of a distributed ledger implemented to have a plurality of data blocks connected by way of logical links in a sequential chain, the at least one instruction being associated with information deposited onto the one or more data blocks, the deposited information comprising at least one of data or metadata utilizable by a second entity, using a computing application, to perform one or more operations according to the at least one instructions as related to a first step in a process being managed by the first entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0041-0042, 0048-0049, 0062, 0096, 0004-0006, 0058, as stated above with respect to claim 1); reading one or more results deposited onto the one or more blocks of the distributed ledger, the one or more results having been generated by the second entity according to the at least one instruction deposited by the first entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042, 0049, 0060, 0063, as stated above with respect to claim 1); and utilizing, by the first entity, at least a portion of the one or more results deposited by the second entity to confirm that one or more processes associated with the deposited information are performed by the second entity according to the at least one instruction (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0049, 0063, as stated above with respect to claim 1).
However, Asthana does not explicitly teach wherein rules and conditions associated with managing the one or more processes are stored on at least one block of the distributed ledger, and wherein the distributed ledger is configured to act as an escrow such that the second entity receives payment automatically after the confirming.
Dutta from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein rules and conditions associated with managing the one or more processes are stored on at least one block of the distributed ledger, and wherein the distributed ledger is configured to act as an escrow such that the second entity receives payment automatically after the confirming (Dutta: Paragraph(s) 0045, 0056-0057 teach(es) smart contract is launched by operating system during power-up. Smart contract may be configured to monitor system calls made by an application and compare the system calls to a rules database (i.e., rules and conditions associated with managing the one or more processes or controlling the transactions and the workflow) embedded within smart contract (i.e., stored on at least one block of the distributed immutable ledger), or to compare the system calls to entries in one of the ledgers; The initial ledger (i.e., distributed immutable ledger) may include existing records from prior transactions or may be a genesis ledger, populated with a number of blocks to establish a set of rules (i.e., rules and conditions) by which data is to be protected within the private blockchain network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the orchestration engine using a blockchain for a cloud resource digital ledger of Asthana to incorporate the application level data security teachings of Dutta for the benefit of providing field level data security without requiring modifications to existing applications or needing to use custom applications (Dutta: Paragraph(s) 0002).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Asthana and Dutta teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above; and Asthana further teaches wherein the second entity utilizes a second process engine compatible with the first process engine to (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042, 0061-0062 teach(es) one or more events associated with the multiple parties and/or the multiple resources can be managed through one or more contract transactions (e.g., one or more smart contract transactions) that are persisted in a blockchain ledger): monitor a first data block of the distributed ledger for the at least one instruction (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042 teach(es) an event can include... monitoring a computing resource associated with the cloud-based computing platform); perform the one or more operations according to the at least one instruction in order to advance the process being managed by the first entity to a second step in the process (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042 teach(es) an event can include... performing a security process associated with the cloud-based computing platform); and deposit the one or more results on a second data block monitored by the first process engine (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042 teach(es) updating a computing resource associated with the cloud-based computing platform, an event can include... invoking an application programming interface associated with the cloud-based computing platform, etc.).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Asthana and Dutta teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above; and Asthana further teaches further comprising deploying one or more of the first process engine and the second process engine as a smart contract on the distributed ledger to orchestrate execution of process flow and data exchanges between the first entity and the second entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042, 0048-0049 teach(es) One or more events associated with the multiple parties and/or the multiple resources can be managed through one or more contract transactions (e.g., one or more smart contract transactions) that are persisted in a blockchain ledger).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Asthana and Dutta teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above; and Asthana further teaches wherein one or more records are maintained on the distributed ledger, the one or more records comprising: the at least one instruction, the deposited information by the first entity, and the deposited results by the second entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0042 teach(es) one or more events associated with the management of the one or more computing resources can be added into a blockchain. For instance, event data indicative of an event associated with a contract transaction (e.g., a smart contract transaction) between the one or more computing resources can be added into the blockchain. The one or more events can include, for example, one or more requests associated with the cloud-based computing platform, one or more changes associated with the cloud-based computing platform, one or more controls associated with the cloud-based computing platform, one or more updates associated with the cloud-based computing platform, and/or one or more other events associated with the cloud-based computing platform).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Asthana and Dutta teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above; and Asthana further teaches wherein the deposited information by the first entity is stored on a first block on the distributed ledger such that the first block is monitored by the second entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0006, 0054 teach(es) the learning component can monitor the cloud-based computing platform to facilitate learning of one or more features and/or information related to one or more resources associated with the cloud-based computing platform).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Asthana and Dutta teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above; and Asthana further teaches wherein the one or more results deposited by the second entity are stored on a second block on the distributed ledger such that the second block is monitored by the first entity (Asthana: Paragraph(s) 0006, 0054 teach(es) the learning component can monitor the cloud-based computing platform to facilitate learning of one or more features and/or information related to one or more resources associated with the cloud-based computing platform).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cook (US 20200042960 A1) teaches procurement system using blockchain, including that the blockchain may implement smart contracts that enforce data workflows in a decentralized manner, metadata, synchronization, syncing data, request, and consensus.
Webster (US 20200127843 A1) teaches process for managing escrow payments between multiple parties, including shared workflow for completing the blockchain smart contract and SaaS at least in [0033] & [0054]-[0055].
Elden (US 20190392392 A1) teaches blockchain-based workflow system, including smart contract, and that determining a role for the employee is authorized to perform the transaction.
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