DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
This action is in reply to the application filed on February 10, 2025.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on July 22, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention at the time of filing. Original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
Claim 14, lines 4, 8, and 21, references “perform artificial intelligence AI-driven negotiations” but neither the claim nor the specification explain what this process would entail. The specification does not refer to artificial intelligence negotiations anywhere. Thus, it would be unclear to one of skill in the art whether Applicant has possession over this step in the process because the step merely specifies a desired result but does not explain how the function is performed. Here, the specification would need to explain how Applicant intended to perform the desired function, for example, by providing a specific artificial intelligence algorithm or processing.
Claim 15, lines 4 and 17, references “perform artificial intelligence AI-driven negotiations” but neither the claim nor the specification explain what this process would entail. The specification does not refer to artificial intelligence negotiations anywhere. Thus, it would be unclear to one of skill in the art whether Applicant has possession over this step in the process because the step merely specifies a desired result but does not explain how the function is performed. Here, the specification would need to explain how Applicant intended to perform the desired function, for example, by providing a specific artificial intelligence algorithm or processing.
Claim 16, lines 4 and 12, references “perform artificial intelligence AI-driven decision making” and “AI-driven mechanism to revise” respectively, but neither the claim nor the specification explain what this process would entail. The specification does not refer to artificial intelligence decision making or revising anywhere. Thus, it would be unclear to one of skill in the art whether Applicant has possession over this step in the process because the step merely specifies a desired result but does not explain how the function is performed. Here, the specification would need to explain how Applicant intended to perform the desired function, for example, by providing a specific artificial intelligence algorithm or processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
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.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–16 are directed to a machine (“A system”), and claims 17–20 are directed to a process (“A method”). Thus, claims 1–20 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–20, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . a client . . . economic agent, wherein the client . . . economic agent is configured to . . . generate and broadcast a service request to other . . . economic agents; and
a plurality of service provider . . . economic agents, each of the plurality of service provider . . . economic agents . . .:
. . . wherein each of the plurality of service provider . . . economic agents is configured to:
receive the service request from the client . . . economic agent;
in response to the service request, generate a service bid;
and communicate the service bid to the client . . . economic agent, . . .
provide the service requested.
The claims, therefore, recite performing a service request, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“drone”, “decentralized computing network”, “autonomous economic agents”, “software module”, “data processing arrangement”, “autonomously”, “service components”, “drone frame”, “camera module”, “sensor module”, “mission planning module”, “communication module”, “portable communication device”, “autonomously”, “artificial intelligence”, “open economic framework”, “distributed ledger arrangement”, “blockchain”, “smart contract”, and “computing node”). These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to communicate information and execute the service request. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 17 is rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 1. There are no additional elements recited in this claim other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“drone”, “decentralized computing network”, “autonomous economic agents”, “software module”, “data processing arrangement”, “service components”, “drone frame”, “camera module”, “sensor module”, “mission planning module”, “communication module”, and “autonomously”). The only difference is that the features of claim 1 are implemented by a method in claim 17. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claim 17 is also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–16 and 18–20 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claims 2, 3, and 9, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the service request recited in claim 1 by further specifying how the parties are connected—“provided on a portable communication device”, “connected to individual data processing arrangement that is further coupled to the one or more service components”, and “employs at least one artificial intelligence algorithm”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“data processing arrangement”, “autonomous economic agent”, and “service components”). These claims do recite a portable communication device and artificial intelligence, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to communicate information and execute the service request. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 4, 6, and 18, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the service request recited in claims 1 and 17 by further specifying how the bids are made—“collaboratively generate the service bid” and “generate respective service requests”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“autonomous economic agent”, “drone frame”, “camera module”, “sensor module”, “mission planning module”, “communication module”, and “drone”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 5, 7, 8, and 19, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the service request recited in claims 1 and 17 by further specifying the service request—“perform aerial photography”, “allow a revision of one or more characteristics”, and “includes at least one of: a price, . . . a time”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“autonomous economic agent”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 10–13, and 20, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite applying a confidence score to assess the service providers for the transaction, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite the fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“decentralized computing network” and “autonomous economic agent”). These claims do recite an open economic framework, distributed ledger arrangement, and blockchain, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to store and communicate information. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 14–16, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite further negotiating and revising the service requests, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“camera module”, “autonomous economic agents”, “open economic framework”, “drone frame”, “mission planning module”, “drone”, and “distributed ledger arrangement”). These claims do recite artificial intelligence, a smart contract, and a computing node, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to perform the service request. These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1–8 and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0307449 (“Gordon”) in view of Berg, U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0338963 (“Berg”) and Seriani, U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0229258 (“Seriani”).
For claim 1, Gordon teaches:
A system for operating a drone, comprising (¶ 45: example drone system) . . .:
a client autonomous economic agent, wherein the client autonomous economic agent is configured to, autonomously, generate and broadcast a service request to other autonomous economic agents (¶ 53: request for service sent to system for drones to perform); and
a plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents, each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents being associated with one or more service components, wherein each of the one or more service components includes the drone and at least one of (¶ 45–46: drones including various components):
a drone frame, a camera module, a sensor module, a mission planning module, a communication module, wherein each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents is configured to (¶ 48: drones include camera, sensor; ¶ 46: microprocessor for controlling drones and performing communications):
receive the service request from the client autonomous economic agent (¶ 46: service node receives service request); . . .
wherein at least one service component from the one or more service components is associated with the drone (¶ 46–49: various drone components), and
wherein the at least one service component is configured to autonomously provide the service requested (¶ 46–49 drone components used to perform service and tasks).
Gordon does not teach: a decentralized computing network that comprises one or more autonomous economic agents, wherein each of the one or more autonomous economic agents is a software module connected to a data processing arrangement, wherein the system comprises: in response to the service request, generate a service bid; and communicate the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent.
Berg, however, teaches:
a decentralized computing network that comprises one or more autonomous economic agents, wherein each of the one or more autonomous economic agents is a software module connected to a data processing arrangement, wherein the system comprises (¶ 16: decentralized network of autonomous nodes; ¶ 17: nodes include computing devices with software).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon by adding decentralized system from Berg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of providing a distributed exchange for bid matching transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Berg (¶ 3: distributed systems provide improvements over standard computing systems, but may not support larger transactions; ¶ 14: invention provides distributed exchange with matching system).
The combination of Gordon and Berg does not teach: in response to the service request, generate a service bid; and communicate the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent.
Seriani, however, teaches:
in response to the service request, generate a service bid (¶ 43: bid generated based on request); and
communicate the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent (¶ 47: requesting customer receives bid).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon and the decentralized system in Berg by adding the bidding from Seriani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating bid responses to customer transportation requests—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Seriani (¶ 12: need for more rapid responses to customer requests, so invention facilitates relationship between service provider and customer). Gordon, Berg, and Seriani are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 2, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Gordon further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein the data processing arrangement connected to the client autonomous economic agent is provided on a portable communication device (¶ 45: device may be wireless smartphone).
For claim 3, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Gordon further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents is connected to individual data processing arrangement that is further coupled to the one or more service components (¶ 45–46: drones connected to system and the various components).
For claim 4, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 3 above, and Seriani further teaches:
A system of claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents are configured to collaboratively generate the service bid (¶ 17: service provided by one or more service providers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon and the decentralized system in Berg by adding the bidding from Seriani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating bid responses to customer transportation requests—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Seriani (¶ 12: need for more rapid responses to customer requests, so invention facilitates relationship between service provider and customer). Gordon, Berg, and Seriani are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 5, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Gordon further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein the service request includes a request to perform aerial photography associated with a location, such as, for aerial inspection (¶ 48: services and tasks including surveying and aerial footage).
For claim 6, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 5 above, and Seriani further teaches:
A system of claim 5, wherein the drone frame, the camera module, the sensor module, the mission planning module, and the communication module are components of the drone, wherein each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents is configured to generate respective service requests and accept service bids generated by respective service provider autonomous economic agents (¶ 45, 48: multiple service providers provide individual bids).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon and the decentralized system in Berg by adding the bidding from Seriani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating bid responses to customer transportation requests—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Seriani (¶ 12: need for more rapid responses to customer requests, so invention facilitates relationship between service provider and customer). Gordon, Berg, and Seriani are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 7, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Gordon further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents is configured to allow a revision of one or more characteristics associated with the service request (¶ 70: modification of service request).
For claim 8, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Gordon further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein the service request further includes at least one of: a price associated with the service, a time associated with the service (¶ 53: service request cost specified).
For claim 9, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Seriani further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein the at least one service component employs at least one artificial intelligence algorithm, when in operation (¶ 43: artificial intelligence).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon and the decentralized system in Berg by adding the bidding from Seriani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating bid responses to customer transportation requests—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Seriani (¶ 12: need for more rapid responses to customer requests, so invention facilitates relationship between service provider and customer). Gordon, Berg, and Seriani are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 17, Gordon teaches:
A method for operating a drone that is implemented using a system comprising (¶ 69: example drone system method) . . .:
(i) autonomously, generating and broadcasting a service request, from a client autonomous economic agent to other autonomous economic agents (¶ 53: request for service sent to system for drones to perform); and
(ii) using a plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents, each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents being associated with one or more service components, wherein each of the one or more service components includes the drone and at least one of (¶ 45–46: drones including various components):
a drone frame, a camera module, a sensor module, a mission planning module, a communication module, wherein for each of the plurality of service providers, the method comprises (¶ 48: drones include camera, sensor; ¶ 46: microprocessor for controlling drones and performing communications):
receiving the service request from the client autonomous economic agent (¶ 46: service node receives service request); . . .
wherein at least one service component from the one or more service components is associated with the drone (¶ 46–49: various drone components), and
wherein the at least one service component autonomously provides the service requested (¶ 46–49 drone components used to perform service and tasks).
Gordon does not teach: a decentralized computing network that comprises one or more autonomous economic agents, wherein each of the one or more autonomous economic agents is a software module connected to a data processing arrangement, wherein the method comprises: in response to the service request, generating a service bid; and communicating the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent.
Berg, however, teaches:
a decentralized computing network that comprises one or more autonomous economic agents, wherein each of the one or more autonomous economic agents is a software module connected to a data processing arrangement, wherein the method comprises (¶ 16: decentralized network of autonomous nodes; ¶ 17: nodes include computing devices with software).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon by adding decentralized system from Berg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of providing a distributed exchange for bid matching transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Berg (¶ 3: distributed systems provide improvements over standard computing systems, but may not support larger transactions; ¶ 14: invention provides distributed exchange with matching system).
The combination of Gordon and Berg does not teach: in response to the service request, generating a service bid; and communicating the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent.
Seriani, however, teaches:
in response to the service request, generating a service bid (¶ 43: bid generated based on request); and
communicating the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent (¶ 47: requesting customer receives bid).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon and the decentralized system in Berg by adding the bidding from Seriani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating bid responses to customer transportation requests—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Seriani (¶ 12: need for more rapid responses to customer requests, so invention facilitates relationship between service provider and customer). Gordon, Berg, and Seriani are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 18, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 17 above, and Seriani further teaches:
A method of claim 17, the drone frame, the camera module, the sensor module, the mission planning module, and the communication module being components of the drone, wherein the method further comprises generating respective service requests and accepting service bids generated by respective service provider autonomous economic agents (¶ 45, 48: multiple service providers provide individual bids).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon and the decentralized system in Berg by adding the bidding from Seriani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating bid responses to customer transportation requests—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Seriani (¶ 12: need for more rapid responses to customer requests, so invention facilitates relationship between service provider and customer). Gordon, Berg, and Seriani are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 19, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 17 above, and Gordon further teaches:
A method of claim 17, further comprising allowing a revision of one or more characteristics associated with the service request (¶ 70: modification of service request).
Claims 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0307449 (“Gordon”) in view of Berg, U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0338963 (“Berg”); Seriani, U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0229258 (“Seriani”); and Balamurugan et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2013/0290128 (“Balamurugan”).
For claim 10, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Berg further teaches:
A system of claim 1, further comprising an open economic framework implemented on the decentralized computing network, wherein the open economic framework comprises a distributed ledger arrangement (¶ 13: distributed network is blockchain-based) . . ..
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon and the bidding in Seriani by adding the decentralized system from Berg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of providing a distributed exchange for bid matching transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Berg (¶ 3: distributed systems provide improvements over standard computing systems, but may not support larger transactions; ¶ 14: invention provides distributed exchange with matching system). Gordon, Berg, and Seriani are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
The combination of Gordon, Berg, and Seriani does not teach: configured to store a confidence score associated with each autonomous economic agent, and to select a given service provider autonomous economic agent associated with a comparatively higher confidence score to provide the service.
Balamurugan, however, teaches:
configured to store a confidence score associated with each autonomous economic agent, and to select a given service provider autonomous economic agent associated with a comparatively higher confidence score to provide the service (¶ 36: bid evaluation for each provider based on utility score and performance score; ¶ 30–31: total past performances evaluated and compared based on positive and negative deviations).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, and the bidding in Seriani by adding the bid evaluation from Balamurugan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of comprehensively evaluating bids based on prior data—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Balamurugan (¶ 9: need for bid evaluation; ¶ 10: invention provides for bid evaluation and ranking). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 11, Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Berg further teaches:
A system of claim 1, further comprising an open economic framework implemented on the decentralized computing network, wherein the open economic framework comprises a distributed ledger arrangement (¶ 13: distributed network is blockchain-based) . . ..
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the bidding in Seriani, the bid evaluation in Balamurugan by adding the decentralized system from Berg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of providing a distributed exchange for bid matching transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Berg (¶ 3: distributed systems provide improvements over standard computing systems, but may not support larger transactions; ¶ 14: invention provides distributed exchange with matching system). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 20, Gordon, Berg, and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 17 above, and Berg further teaches:
A method of claim 17, further comprising . . . at an open economic framework implemented on the decentralized computing network, wherein the open economic framework comprises a distributed ledger arrangement (¶ 13: distributed network is blockchain-based), and . . ..
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon and the bidding in Seriani by adding the decentralized system from Berg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of providing a distributed exchange for bid matching transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Berg (¶ 3: distributed systems provide improvements over standard computing systems, but may not support larger transactions; ¶ 14: invention provides distributed exchange with matching system). Gordon, Berg, and Seriani are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
The combination of Gordon, Berg, and Seriani does not teach: storing a confidence score associated with each autonomous economic agent . . . selecting a given service provider autonomous economic agent associated with a comparatively higher confidence score to provide the service.
Balamurugan, however, teaches:
storing a confidence score associated with each autonomous economic agent . . . selecting a given service provider autonomous economic agent associated with a comparatively higher confidence score to provide the service (¶ 36: bid evaluation for each provider based on utility score and performance score; ¶ 30–31: total past performances evaluated and compared based on positive and negative deviations).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, and the bidding in Seriani by adding the bid evaluation from Balamurugan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of comprehensively evaluating bids based on prior data—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Balamurugan (¶ 9: need for bid evaluation; ¶ 10: invention provides for bid evaluation and ranking). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0307449 (“Gordon”) in view of Berg, U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0338963 (“Berg”); Seriani, U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0229258 (“Seriani”); Balamurugan et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2013/0290128 (“Balamurugan”); and Sidhu, U.S. Patent App. No. 2009/0265229 (“Sidhu”).
For claim 12, Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan teach all the limitations of claim 10 above. The combination of Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan does not teach: wherein the open economic framework is operable to employ zero-knowledge protocol to compare the confidence scores associated with each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents.
Sidhu, however, teaches:
A system of claim 10, wherein the open economic framework is operable to employ zero-knowledge protocol to compare the confidence scores associated with each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents (¶ 89: anonymous ID provided for service provider without identifying information; ¶ 97: member rating included and displayed with ID; ¶ 90: consumer still able to identify and investigate service provider while maintaining service provider anonymity).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, the bidding in Seriani, and the bid evaluation in Balamurugan by adding the anonymous rating from Sidhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of better connecting consumers and service providers online—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sidhu (¶ 10: need for better connection to ensure best fit and competition; ¶ 90: invention provides anonymous bidding to enable privacy while still allowing for evaluation). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, and Sidhu are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 13, Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan teach all the limitations of claim 10 above. The combination of Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan does not teach: wherein the open economic framework is operable to obtain verifiable information associated with characteristics of the confidence score for each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents, without disclosing identifiable information of the one or more other service provider autonomous economic agents thereto.
Sidhu, however, teaches:
A system of claim 10, wherein the open economic framework is operable to obtain verifiable information associated with characteristics of the confidence score for each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents, without disclosing identifiable information of the one or more other service provider autonomous economic agents thereto (¶ 89: anonymous ID provided for service provider without identifying information; ¶ 97: member rating included and displayed with ID; ¶ 90: consumer still able to identify and investigate service provider while maintaining service provider anonymity).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, the bidding in Seriani, and the bid evaluation in Balamurugan by adding the anonymous rating from Sidhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of better connecting consumers and service providers online—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Sidhu (¶ 10: need for better connection to ensure best fit and competition; ¶ 90: invention provides anonymous bidding to enable privacy while still allowing for evaluation). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, and Sidhu are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0307449 (“Gordon”) in view of Berg, U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0338963 (“Berg”); Seriani, U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0229258 (“Seriani”); Balamurugan et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2013/0290128 (“Balamurugan”); Blue, U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0300647 (“Blue”); and Molinari et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0011460 (“Molinari”).
For claim 14, Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan teach all the limitations of claim 10 above, and Gordon further teaches:
A system of claim 10, wherein when the camera module is a first service provider autonomous economic agent, the open economic framework is operable to: . . . with the drone frame to carry the camera module to a given location, wherein the drone frame is a second service provider autonomous economic agent (¶ 48: drone takes camera to location);
. . . with a mission planning module for generating a flight plan for journey of the drone from a current location to the given location, wherein the mission planning module is a third service provider autonomous economic agent (¶ 49: drones perform path planning); and . . .
wherein for each of the plurality of service providers that are autonomous economic agents, at least one computing node is configured to: generate respective service requests by the first service provider autonomous economic agent, and the second service provider autonomous economic agent (¶ 53: request for service sent to system for drones to perform) . . ..
Gordon does not teach: perform artificial intelligence AI-driven negotiations between the first service provider autonomous economic agent; perform AI-driven negotiations between the second service provider autonomous economic agent; execute at least one term via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement, generate service bids corresponding to the service requests; employ a mechanism for the AI-driven negotiations to facilitate acceptance of the service bids; and execute communication of the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent, via the smart contract.
Seriani, however, teaches:
generate service bids corresponding to the service requests (¶ 43: bid generated based on request).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, and the bid evaluation in Balamurugan by adding the bidding from Seriani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating bid responses to customer transportation requests—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Seriani (¶ 12: need for more rapid responses to customer requests, so invention facilitates relationship between service provider and customer). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
The combination of Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan does not teach: perform artificial intelligence AI-driven negotiations between the first service provider autonomous economic agent; perform AI-driven negotiations between the second service provider autonomous economic agent; execute at least one term via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement, employ a mechanism for the AI-driven negotiations to facilitate acceptance of the service bids; and execute communication of the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent, via the smart contract.
Blue, however, teaches:
perform artificial intelligence AI-driven negotiations between the first service provider autonomous economic agent (¶ 79–80: machine learning based negotiation with service provider contracts);
perform AI-driven negotiations between the second service provider autonomous economic agent (¶ 79–80: machine learning based negotiation with service provider contracts);
employ a mechanism for the AI-driven negotiations to facilitate acceptance of the service bids (¶ 79–80: machine learning based negotiation based on service provider bids).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, the bidding in Seriani, and the bid evaluation in Balamurugan by adding the machine learning from Blue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating negotiations with service providers—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Blue (¶ 19: need for artificial intelligence service negotiation model with transportation industry service providers; ¶ 20: invention provides artificial intelligence service negotiation model). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, and Blue are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
The combination of Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, and Blue does not teach: execute at least one term via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement, and execute communication of the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent, via the smart contract.
Molinari, however, teaches:
execute at least one term via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement (¶ 44: smart contract is created based on agreement), and
execute communication of the service bid to the client autonomous economic agent, via the smart contract (¶ 98: parties presented with smart contract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, the bidding in Seriani, the bid evaluation in Balamurugan, and the machine learning in Blue by adding the smart contract from Molinari. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating electronic transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Molinari (¶ 7: need for transactions to be processed more efficiently and transparently; ¶ 8: invention provides peer-to-peer network with smart contracts). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, Blue, and Molinari are all related in part to electronic transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
For claim 16, Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan teach all the limitations of claim 10 above, and Gordon further teaches:
A system of claim 10, wherein for a given service provider autonomous economic agent, the at least one computing node is further configured to: allow revision of one or more characteristics associated with the generated service request, using artificial intelligence AI-driven decision making, to revise the service request (¶ 70: modification of service request);
provide a portion of remuneration to a given service component, based on the revised service request, wherein a transaction related to the portion of the remuneration is executed via the smart contract (¶ 70: cost transmitted for completing service);
. . . to revise a flight plan of the drone in response to the revised service request (¶ 70: various features of flight modified);
determine whether the revised flight plan of the drone complies with one or more parameters provided with the service request (¶ 70: determination whether service complete based on modification); and
when it is determined that the revised flight plan of the drone complies with the one or more parameters provided with the service request, accommodate the revised service request into the flight plan (¶ 70: modification applied to service request).
The combination of Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan does not teach: execute the revised service request via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement; employ at least one AI-driven mechanism; and via the smart contract.
Blue, however, teaches:
employ at least one AI-driven mechanism (¶ 79–80: machine learning based negotiation based on service provider bids).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, the bidding in Seriani, and the bid evaluation in Balamurugan by adding the machine learning from Blue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating negotiations with service providers—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Blue (¶ 19: need for artificial intelligence service negotiation model with transportation industry service providers; ¶ 20: invention provides artificial intelligence service negotiation model). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, and Blue are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
The combination of Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, and Blue does not teach: execute the revised service request via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement; and via the smart contract.
Molinari, however, teaches:
execute the revised service request via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement (¶ 44: smart contract is created based on agreement); and
via the smart contract (¶ 98: parties presented with smart contract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, the bidding in Seriani, the bid evaluation in Balamurugan, and the machine learning in Blue by adding the smart contract from Molinari. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating electronic transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Molinari (¶ 7: need for transactions to be processed more efficiently and transparently; ¶ 8: invention provides peer-to-peer network with smart contracts). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, Blue, and Molinari are all related in part to electronic transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0307449 (“Gordon”) in view of Berg, U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0338963 (“Berg”); Seriani, U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0229258 (“Seriani”); Balamurugan et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2013/0290128 (“Balamurugan”); Blue, U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0300647 (“Blue”); Molinari et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0011460 (“Molinari”); and Cao, U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0364678 (“Cao”).
Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan teach all the limitations of claim 10 above, and Gordon further teaches:
A system of claim 10, . . . wherein for each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents, the at least one computing node is further configured to: generate another service request by the third service provider autonomous economic agent (¶ 53: request for service sent to system for drones to perform) . . ..
Gordon does not teach: when the at least one service component further comprises an insurance module, the open economic framework is further configured to: perform artificial intelligence AI-driven negotiations between the third service provider autonomous economic agent and an insurance provider to obtain an insurance for flight of the drone, wherein the insurance provider is a fourth service provider autonomous economic agent, and execute at least one term via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement; generate another service bid corresponding to the another service request; employ mechanisms for the AI-driven negotiations to accept the another service bid; and execute communication of said another service bid to the client autonomous economic agent, via the smart contract.
Seriani, however, teaches:
generate another service bid corresponding to the another service request (¶ 43: bid generated based on request).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, and the bid evaluation in Balamurugan by adding the bidding from Seriani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating bid responses to customer transportation requests—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Seriani (¶ 12: need for more rapid responses to customer requests, so invention facilitates relationship between service provider and customer). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
The combination of Gordon, Berg, Seriani, and Balamurugan does not teach: when the at least one service component further comprises an insurance module, the open economic framework is further configured to: perform artificial intelligence AI-driven negotiations between the third service provider autonomous economic agent and an insurance provider to obtain an insurance for flight of the drone, wherein the insurance provider is a fourth service provider autonomous economic agent, and execute at least one term via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement; employ mechanisms for the AI-driven negotiations to accept the another service bid; and execute communication of said another service bid to the client autonomous economic agent, via the smart contract.
Blue, however, teaches:
perform artificial intelligence AI-driven negotiations (¶ 79–80: machine learning based negotiation with service provider contracts);
employ mechanisms for the AI-driven negotiations to accept the another service bid (¶ 79–80: machine learning based negotiation based on service provider bids).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, the bidding in Seriani, and the bid evaluation in Balamurugan by adding the machine learning from Blue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating negotiations with service providers—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Blue (¶ 19: need for artificial intelligence service negotiation model with transportation industry service providers; ¶ 20: invention provides artificial intelligence service negotiation model). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, and Blue are all related in part to service provider bidding transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
The combination of Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, and Blue does not teach: wherein when the at least one service component further comprises an insurance module, the open economic framework is further configured to: . . . between the third service provider autonomous economic agent and an insurance provider to obtain an insurance for flight of the drone, wherein the insurance provider is a fourth service provider autonomous economic agent; and execute at least one term via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement; and execute communication of said another service bid to the client autonomous economic agent, via the smart contract.
Molinari, however, teaches:
execute at least one term via a smart contract deployed on the distributed ledger arrangement (¶ 44: smart contract is created based on agreement), and
execute communication of said another service bid to the client autonomous economic agent, via the smart contract (¶ 98: parties presented with smart contract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, the bidding in Seriani, the bid evaluation in Balamurugan, and the machine learning in Blue by adding the smart contract from Molinari. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of facilitating electronic transactions—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Molinari (¶ 7: need for transactions to be processed more efficiently and transparently; ¶ 8: invention provides peer-to-peer network with smart contracts). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, Blue, and Molinari are all related in part to electronic transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
The combination of Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, Blue, and Molinari does not teach: wherein when the at least one service component further comprises an insurance module, the open economic framework is further configured to: . . . between the third service provider autonomous economic agent and an insurance provider to obtain an insurance for flight of the drone, wherein the insurance provider is a fourth service provider autonomous economic agent.
Cao, however, teaches:
wherein when the at least one service component further comprises an insurance module, the open economic framework is further configured to: . . . between the third service provider autonomous economic agent and an insurance provider to obtain an insurance for flight of the drone, wherein the insurance provider is a fourth service provider autonomous economic agent (¶ 256–258: insurance provided to service provider for performance of service; ¶ 47–48: drones).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the service request in Gordon, the decentralized system in Berg, the bidding in Seriani, the bid evaluation in Balamurugan, the machine learning in Blue, and the smart contract in Molinari by adding the insurance from Cao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the purpose of better utilizing vehicles for providing services—a benefit explicitly disclosed by Cao (¶ 21: invention provides advantages of improving utilization of underutilized vehicles). Gordon, Berg, Seriani, Balamurugan, Blue, Molinari, and Cao are all related in part to electronic transactions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these transactions even more efficient by combining these references together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM 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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. 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.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights