DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in reply to Application 18/981,842 filed on 16 December 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, representative method claim 8 is directed towards facilitating tracking of a capital transaction. Claim 8 is directed to the abstract idea of using rules and/or instructions to implement an economic- /commercial-related concept/practice of facilitating the tracking of the transaction history of a capital item (e.g., vehicle) and making the record publicly available in an automatic and/or organized manner, grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; sales activity; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing interactions between people (including social activities, teachings, following rules or instructions), as well as mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, formulas, equations or calculations, groupings, in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 8 recites: “receiving, via a computing device, a plurality of inputs, the plurality of inputs comprising:
a first hash value generated based at least on a first portion of a first block of data of a first blockchain;
a second hash value generated based at least on transaction information from one or more transactions, wherein the transaction information includes a first serial number or a vehicle identification number;
generating, via the computing device, a second block of data based at least on the plurality of inputs;
sending, via the computing device, at least the second block of data to a plurality of nodes for validation; and
generating a second blockchain by combining the first blockchain with the second block of data”.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as a “computing device”, “generating a first/second hash value”, “generating a first/second blockchain”, represent the use of a computer as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of using rules and/or instructions to implement an economic- /commercial-related concept/practice of facilitating the tracking of the transaction history of a capital item (e.g., vehicle) and making the record publicly available in an automatic and/or organized manner.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of using rules and/or instructions to implement an economic- /commercial-related concept/practice of facilitating the tracking of the transaction history of a capital item (e.g., vehicle) and making the record publicly available in an automatic and/or organized manner using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 1 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 8 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 8 applies to claim 1 accordingly.
Independent claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 15 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 8 in terms of a software product (e.g., manufacture). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 8 applies to claim 15 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Toll et al., US 9,794,074 B2 (“Toll”), in view of Scott et al., US 2024/0193588 A1(“Scott”), in view of Struttmann, US 10,075,298 B2 (“Struttmann”).
Re Claim 1: Toll discloses a system for tracking capital transactions comprising:
at least one computing device in operable communication with a network; (C1 L62-63: “The computer system includes a processing system with at least one hardware processor.”; C5 L34-36: “The electronic data messages are received (e.g., via a transceiver of that system - such a network interface 518”)
an application server in operable communication with the at least one computing device over the network, the application server configured to host an application program configured to: (C18 L16: “… may include a web server”)
receive a plurality of inputs comprising: (C18 L23-26: “The system bus 504 communicates with user input adapter 510 (e.g., PS/2, USB interface, or the like) that allows users in input commands to computer system 500 via a user input device 512”)
Regarding the limitation features comprising:
a first hash value generated based at least on a first portion of a first block of data of a first blockchain;
a second hash value generated based at least on transaction information from one or more transactions,
Scott makes these teachings in a related endeavor (FIG. 2: “Storing transaction data of a transaction of a hash chain by appending a lock block and appending a data block to a hash chain [Step 202]; Abstract: “appending a data block of a transaction of a first hash chain to a second hash chain. The second hash chain originates from a tail block of the first hash chain.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Scott with the invention of Toll as disclosed above, for the motivation of appending data block transactions.
Toll further discloses:
wherein the transaction information includes a first serial number or a vehicle identification number; (C7 L51-53: “identifiers are used to allow other users to "send" transactions, which are recorded on the blockchain, to that identifier.”)
Regarding the limitation features comprising:
generate a second block of data based at least on the plurality of inputs;
send at least the second block of data to a plurality of nodes for validation;
Struttman makes these teachings in a related endeavor (C13 L25-30: “if the data is altered at all, the entire hash for the tree (as is distinct from a hash of a file stored in the database) is thrown off immediately and ultimately the chain will be broken and detected as such during validation operations…”; C40 L63-65: “Some embodiments may then store the higher-security values in a second remote database, as indicated by block 212.”; C41 L1-3: “in some cases, the secure second remote database may be another relational database or other type of database …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Struttmann with the invention of Toll as disclosed above, for the motivation of recording a plurality of records in a tamper-evident log.
Regarding the limitation feature comprising
generate a second blockchain by combining the first blockchain with the second block of data.
Scott makes these teachings in a related endeavor (FIG. 2: “Storing transaction data of a transaction of a hash chain by appending a lock block and appending a data block to a hash chain [Step 202]; Abstract: “appending a data block of a transaction of a first hash chain to a second hash chain. The second hash chain originates from a tail block of the first hash chain.”; ¶[0002]: “A transaction may be stored to a hash chain as a set of multiple blocks …”; ¶[0039]: “Blocks may be appended to the hash chain by setting the previous block identifier of a new block to the tail block identifier of the hash chain …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Scott with the invention of Toll as disclosed above, for the motivation of appending and recording multiple transactions in a secure ledger.
Re Claim 2: Toll in view of Scott in view of Struttmann discloses the system for tracking capital transactions of claim 1. Toll further discloses:
wherein the application program is further configured to:
determine a first nonce value;
determine a third hash value based at least on the plurality of inputs and the first nonce value; and
compare the third hash value to a target value, wherein generating the second block of data comprises generating the second block of data based at least on the first nonce value and the plurality of inputs.
(C15 L27-35: “The additional random data is sometimes called a "nonce." In order to validate a new block into the blockchain ( or one transaction), the proof of work process (e.g., the hash operation process) that is performed may include finding an input hash value (i.e., the block) that results in an output hash value that meets a given condition …”)
Re Claim 3: Toll in view of Scott in view of Struttmann discloses the system for tracking capital transactions of claim 2. Toll further discloses:
wherein the first nonce value is randomly generated. (C15 L22-25: “In certain examples, the input value for the hash function is supplemented with some additional random data …”)
Re Claim 4: Toll in view of Scott in view of Struttmann discloses the system for tracking capital transactions of claim 2. With regard to the limitation feature comprising:
wherein the first nonce value is a pseudorandom number.
Struttman makes these teachings in a related endeavor (C27 L39-47: “… some embodiments may select storage compute nodes 26, for example, with a random number or with a pseudorandom value generator …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Struttmann with the invention of Toll as disclosed above, for the motivation of recording a plurality of records in a tamper-evident log.
Re Claim 5: Toll in view of Scott in view of Struttmann discloses the system for tracking capital transactions of claim 2. Toll further discloses:
validating the second block of data by comparing the first nonce value to the target value. (C9 L3-6: “Once the blockchain 114 receives the event, the smart contract may automatically execute (which may include validating that the event is authentic …”).
Re Claim 6: Toll in view of Scott in view of Struttmann discloses the system for tracking capital transactions of claim 1. Regarding the limitation feature comprising:
wherein the first hash value and the second hash value are generated via hash functions that convert the plurality of inputs into one or more fixed-size outputs.
Scott makes these teachings in a related endeavor (FIG. 2: “Storing transaction data of a transaction of a hash chain by appending a lock block and appending a data block to a hash chain [Step 202]; Abstract: “appending a data block of a transaction of a first hash chain to a second hash chain. The second hash chain originates from a tail block of the first hash chain.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Scott with the invention of Toll as disclosed above, for the motivation of appending data block transactions.
Re Claim 7: Toll in view of Scott in view of Struttmann discloses the system for tracking capital transactions of claim 1. Regarding the limitation feature comprising:
wherein the second hash value is a Merkle root of transaction information from the plurality of inputs.
Struttman makes these teachings in a related endeavor (C17 L30-33: “In some embodiments, blocks have an integer index, a block capacity, a cryptographic hash value based on all of the nodes in the block (like a Merkle root) …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Struttmann with the invention of Toll as disclosed above, for the motivation of recording a plurality of records in a tamper-evident log.
Re Claim 8: Claim 8, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 9: Claim 9, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
Re Claim 10: Claim 10, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 11: Claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4.
Re Claim 12: Claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 13: Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 14: Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Re Claim 15: Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re Claim 16: Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2.
The software product of claim 15,
wherein the application instructions are further executable to:
determine a first nonce value;
determine a third hash value based at least on the plurality of inputs and the first nonce value; and
compare the third hash value to a target value, wherein generating the second block of data comprises generating the second block of data based at least on the first nonce value and the plurality of inputs.
Re Claim 17: Claim 17, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3.
Re Claim 18: Claim 18, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5.
Re Claim 19: Claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6.
Re Claim 20: Claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, encompasses the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chan et al. (US 12,346,898 B2) discloses script based blockchain interaction. A computer-implemented method using a blockchain network includes: i) receiving, at a node in a blockchain
network, a first transaction associated with a digital asset, the first transaction specifying at least: a) a first set of constraints on a second transaction to transfer control of the digital asset, the first set of constraints including one or more constraints that cause the second transaction to contain a set
of data from the blockchain network; and b) a second set of constraints on the second transaction, the second set of constraints including a constraint that the set of data includes a block that includes the first transaction, the block included in a blockchain associated with the blockchain network.
Huang et al. (US 11,570,005 B2) discloses systems and methods for proving immutability of blockchains. The present disclosure provides systems, methods, and computer-readable storage media having functionality to prove immutability of blockchains without accessing user data. A user may submit data for storage to a data management server and the data management server may generate one or more data records corresponding to the data at a database and one or more blocks at a blockchain, each block corresponding to of the data records. Block information associated with the generated blocks may be transmitted to a remote computing device for storage at a database. Prior
to storing the block information, the remote computing device may sign the data using a private key or other cryptographic technique. To validate a block, raw block information may be retrieved from the blockchain and compared to the signed block information. If the signed block information matches the raw block information, the block may be determined to be valid ( e.g., unchanged).
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692