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 1–19 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 Objections
Claims 16–19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 16–19, “A system of claim 15” should read “The method of claim 15”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the at least one service component” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the at least one service component” has been interpreted as any service component. Claims 16–19 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 15.
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 1–19 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 1–14 are directed to a machine (“A system”), and claims 15–19 are directed to a process (“A method”). Thus, claims 1–19 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–19, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
a client . . . agent . . ., wherein the client . . . agent is configured to, autonomously, generate and broadcast a service request to other . . . agents, wherein the service request includes an autonomous request . . .;
a plurality of service provider . . . agents . . ., wherein each of the plurality of service provider . . . agents is configured to:
receive the service request from the client . . . agent;
in response to the service request, generate a service bid; and
communicate the service bid to the client . . . agent, . . .and
wherein at least one service provider . . . agent from amongst the plurality of service provider . . . agents is configured to autonomously provide the service . . ..
The claims, therefore, recite a service request transaction, 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 (“electric charging”, “decentralized computing network”, “autonomous economic agents”, “software module”, “data processing arrangement”, “device”, “electrical vehicle”, “battery”, “service component”, “charging terminal”, “artificial intelligence”, “database”, “open economic framework”, “distributed ledger arrangement”, “blockchain”, “smart contract”, “digital token”, “digital wallet”, and “encrypted”). The claims also recite “electric charging the battery of the electrical vehicle”. 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 data and execute an action corresponding to 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 15 are 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 (“electric charging”, “decentralized computing network”, “autonomous economic agents”, “software module”, “data processing arrangement”, “device”, “electrical vehicle”, “battery”, “service components”, and “charging terminal”). The only difference is that the features of claim 1 are implemented by a method in claim 11. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claim 11 is also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2–14 and 16–19 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, 5–8, 16, 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 15 by further specifying how it is generated—“algorithm, based on data” and “at a specific time, based on a charging schedule”, “occupying an empty time slot”, “selected based on at least one of: loading predictions, generating capacity predictions, of an electrical power grid”, and “maximize the corresponding load factor”. 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 (“battery”, “electrical vehicle”, “service component”, and “autonomous economic agents”). These claims do recite an artificial intelligence algorithm and charging terminals, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to generate and execute the service request, respectively, rather than creating any type of improvement to the technologies themselves. 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 3, 4, 17, 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 15 by further specifying what it includes—“charging . . . for maximizing a battery service life longevity, or for selecting a most prompt charging” and “initiation of charging the battery upon determination of a minimum price”. 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 (“battery”). 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 9–12, the additional recited limitations of these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea. These dependent claims only recite applying a confidence score to the service providers to select them without disclosing identifiable information, 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, and blockchain, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to store and communicate data. 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 claim 13, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the service request recited in claim 9 by further specifying the agreement—“automatically generate . . . based on communication” and “share the agreement”. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“open economic framework” and “autonomous economic agents”). This claim does recite a smart contract, but again, this is also merely being used as tools to store and communicate data. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails 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 claim 14, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the service request recited in claim 9 by further specifying the payment—“remunerate the selected service provider”. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“open economic framework” and “autonomous economic agents”). These claims do recite a digital token, digital wallet, and encrypted, but again, these are also merely being used as tools to provide and receive payment. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides 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 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0012196 (“Ricci”) in view of Seriani, U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0229258 (“Seriani”).
For claim 1, Ricci teaches:
A system for electric charging, comprising a decentralized computing network comprising 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 (¶ 142–143: example system including computing devices connected through network; ¶ 151: computer system comprising software elements):
a client autonomous economic agent communicably coupled with a client device that includes an electrical vehicle, wherein the client autonomous economic agent is configured to, autonomously, generate and broadcast a service request to other autonomous economic agents, wherein the service request includes an autonomous request for electric charging a battery of the electrical vehicle (¶ 142: vehicle computing device; ¶ 56: electric vehicle; ¶ 162: request for vehicle battery charging service);
a plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents associated with at least one service component, wherein each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents is configured to (¶ 99–100: vehicle including various components):
receive the service request from the client autonomous economic agent (¶ 136: vehicle requests charging); . . .
wherein the at least one service component is associated with at least one charging terminal capable of electric charging the battery of the electrical vehicle (¶ 114–115: charge management unit for charging battery), and
wherein at least one service provider autonomous economic agent from amongst the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents is configured to autonomously provide the service of electric charging the battery of the electrical vehicle, via the at least one service component (¶ 54, 72: control of charging fully automated).
Ricci 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 Ricci 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) and desired by Ricci (¶ 157: automated negotiations can be implemented for the purpose of determining price).
For claim 2, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Seriani further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein the service request is generated by employing at least one artificial intelligence algorithm, based on data provided from a remote database (¶ 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 Ricci 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) and desired by Ricci (¶ 157: automated negotiations can be implemented for the purpose of determining price).
For claim 3, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ricci further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein the autonomous request includes a charging regime that is suitable for maximizing a battery service life longevity, or for selecting a most prompt charging of the battery (¶ 159: pricing based on charging, to reduce time and overcharging).
For claim 4, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ricci further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein the autonomous request further includes initiation of charging the battery upon determination of a minimum price associated with charging the battery (¶ 104: battery charging based on billing amount).
For claim 5, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ricci further teaches:
A system of claim 1, wherein the service request is generated at a specific time, based on a charging schedule that is pre-defined by a user associated with the electrical vehicle (¶ 162: service request based time of day service delivered).
For claim 6, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ricci further teaches:
A system of claim 1, the at least one service component includes two service components associated with at least two charging terminals, respectively, wherein each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents is configured to generate the service bid to provide the service by occupying an empty time slot, when the at least two charging terminals are not required to be in operation, in response to the service request (¶ 162: service request based on time slot; ¶ 63: charging inactive).
For claim 7, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 6 above, and Ricci further teaches:
A system of claim 6, wherein the empty time slot is selected based on at least one of: loading predictions, generating capacity predictions, of an electrical power grid (¶ 162: time periods based on peak periods).
For claim 8, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 6 above, and Ricci further teaches:
A system of claim 6, wherein at least one service component is associated with a corresponding load factor, wherein each of the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents are further configured to maximize the corresponding load factor (¶ 102, 118: components include loads).
For claim 15, Ricci teaches:
A method for electric charging that is implemented using a system comprising 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 (¶ 176: example systems and methods; ¶ 142–143: example system including computing devices connected through network; ¶ 151: computer system comprising software elements):
(i) autonomously, generating and broadcasting a service request, from a client autonomous economic agent to other autonomous economic agents, the client autonomous agent being communicably coupled with a client device, wherein the service request includes an autonomous request for electric charging a battery of the electrical vehicle (¶ 142: vehicle computing device; ¶ 56: electric vehicle; ¶ 162: request for vehicle battery charging service);
(ii) using a plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents for (¶ 99–100: vehicle including various components):
receiving the service request from the client autonomous economic agent (¶ 136: vehicle requests charging); . . .
wherein the at least one service component is associated with at least one charging terminal capable of electric charging the battery of the electrical vehicle (¶ 114–115: charge management unit for charging battery), and
wherein at least one service provider autonomous economic agent from amongst the plurality of service provider autonomous economic agents autonomously provides the service of electric charging the battery of the electrical vehicle, via the at least one service component (¶ 54, 72: control of charging fully automated).
Ricci 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 Ricci 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) and desired by Ricci (¶ 157: automated negotiations can be implemented for the purpose of determining price).
For claim 16, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Seriani further teaches:
A system of claim 15, wherein the service request is generated by employing at least one artificial intelligence algorithm, based on data provided from a remote database (¶ 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 Ricci 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) and desired by Ricci (¶ 157: automated negotiations can be implemented for the purpose of determining price).
For claim 17, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Ricci further teaches:
A system of claim 15, wherein the autonomous request includes a charging regime that is suitable for maximizing the battery service life longevity, or for selecting a most prompt charging of the battery (¶ 159: pricing based on charging, to reduce time and overcharging).
For claim 18, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Ricci further teaches:
A system of claim 15, wherein the autonomous request further includes initiation of charging the battery upon determination of a minimum price associated with charging the battery (¶ 104: battery charging based on billing amount).
For claim 19, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 15 above, and Ricci further teaches:
A system of claim 15, wherein the service request is generated at a specific time, based on a charging schedule that is pre-defined by a user associated with the electrical vehicle (¶ 162: service request based time of day service delivered).
Claims 9–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricci et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2018/0012196 (“Ricci”) in view of Seriani, U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0229258 (“Seriani”); Sidhu, U.S. Patent App. No. 2009/0265229 (“Sidhu”); and Molinari et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0011460 (“Molinari”).
For claim 9, Ricci and Seriani teach all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Ricci and Seriani does not teach: an open economic framework implemented on the decentralized computing network, wherein the open economic framework comprises a distributed ledger arrangement 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.
Sidhu, however, teaches:
A system of claim 1, further comprising . . . 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 (¶ 97: member rating included and displayed with ID; ¶ 90: consumer able to identify and investigate service provider).
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 Ricci and the bidding in Seriani by adding member 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). Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu are all related in part to service provider requests, so one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these requests even more effective by combining these references together.
The combination of Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu does not teach: an open economic framework implemented on the decentralized computing network, wherein the open economic framework comprises a distributed ledger arrangement configured to.
Molinari, however, teaches:
an open economic framework implemented on the decentralized computing network, wherein the open economic framework comprises a distributed ledger arrangement configured to (¶ 20: distributed peer-to-peer network).
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 Ricci, the bidding in Seriani, and the member rating in Sidhu by adding the distributed system 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). Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, 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 10, Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, and Molinari teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Molinari further teaches:
A system of claim 9, wherein the distributed ledger arrangement is configured to employ a blockchain data structure (¶ 21: 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 Ricci, the bidding in Seriani, and the member rating in Sidhu by adding the distributed system 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). Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, 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 11, Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, and Molinari teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Sidhu further teaches:
A system of claim 9, 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 Ricci, the bidding in Seriani, and the distributed system in Molinari by adding the member 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). Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, 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 effective by combining these references together.
For claim 12, Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, and Molinari teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Sidhu further teaches:
A system of claim 9, 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 Ricci, the bidding in Seriani, and the distributed system in Molinari by adding the member 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). Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, 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 effective by combining these references together.
For claim 13, Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, and Molinari teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Molinari further teaches:
A system of claim 9, the open economic framework being operable to generate an agreement related to the service, wherein when the agreement is implemented as a smart contract, the open economic framework is further configured to (¶ 44: smart contract is created based on agreement):
automatically generate the smart contract, based on communication between two or more autonomous economic agents (¶ 44: smart contract is created based on agreement); and
share the agreement with the client autonomous economic agent and the given service provider autonomous economic agent (¶ 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 Ricci, the bidding in Seriani, and the member rating in Sidhu by adding the distributed system 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). Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, 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 14, Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, and Molinari teach all the limitations of claim 9 above, and Molinari further teaches:
A system of claim 9, wherein the open economic framework is further operable to remunerate the given service provider autonomous economic agent by a digital token for the provided service, wherein the digital token is stored in a digital wallet, in any one of: an encrypted form, a partially encrypted form (¶ 88: tokens for executing agreement encrypted and maintained in cryptographic wallet).
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 Ricci, the bidding in Seriani, and the member rating in Sidhu by adding the distributed system 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). Ricci, Seriani, and Sidhu, 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.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Those prior art references are as follows:
Tremblay, U.S. Patent App. No. 2015/0149221, discloses automatically charging electric vehicles based on specific conditions.
Cao, U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0364678, discloses customer ride-sharing requests and matching.
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