DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 17 February 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 id objected to because of the following informalities:
“…in accordance one or more weights…” should be “…in accordance with one or more weights…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a computer-implemented method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for blockchain-based software-as-a-service platform for automatically coordinating reverse transactions. These are a process, machine, and article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 15 and 20:
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 20:
“receiving,…, historical deal data related to a set of different entities;”
“filtering the set of entities to determine a filtered subset associated with data regarding a shared interest type;”
“generating a set of profiles associated with the subset of entities based on use of a first…model to analyze the historical deal data;”
“…generating a new profile based on the single entity;”
“verifying accreditation statuses of the subset of the investing entities by reference to an immutable record of accreditation status…;”
“generating a smart contract describing a deal between the subset of investing entities, wherein the smart contract codifies a conditional hold on access to tokens until deal conditions specified by the smart contract are determined to have been met.”
Claim(s) 1 and 20:
“…generating a custom set of filing documents for a single entity from the subset of the investing entities;”
Claim 15:
“…generating a custom set of filing forms for a single entity from the subset of the investing entities;”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “over a Software as a Service network”, “on the blockchain”, “a communication interface that communicates over a communication network with a Software as a Service network platform…with a blockchain”, “a processor that executes instructions stored in memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to:”, or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions executable by a computing system to perform a method of managing deal data using blockchain, the method comprising:” nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Business Relations. A Business Relation is described when performing and reporting private equity transactions. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following (or similar) additional elements:
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 20:
“…over a Software as a Service network…”
“…machine-learning…”
“automatically…”
“…on the blockchain;”
“securely recording on the blockchain an auditable record of terms and commitments;”
Claim 15:
“a communication interface that communicates over a communication network with a Software as a Service network platform…with a blockchain;”
“a processor that executes instructions stored in memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to:”
Claim 20:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions executable by a computing system to perform a method of managing deal data using blockchain, the method comprising:”
The computer components (software as a service (SaaS), automation, communication interface, processor, computing system, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic SaaS, generic automation, a generic communication interface, a generic processor, generic computing system, and generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The securely recording step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generally recording) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
The use of blockchain and machine learning is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technologies) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 20:
“…over a Software as a Service network…”
“…machine learning…”
“automatically…”
“…on the blockchain;”
“securely recording on the blockchain an auditable record of terms and commitments;”
Claim 15:
“a communication interface that communicates over a communication network with a Software as a Service network platform…with a blockchain;”
“a processor that executes instructions stored in memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to:”
Claim 20:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions executable by a computing system to perform a method of managing deal data using blockchain, the method comprising:”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for recording various data) Storing and retrieving information in memory, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-14 and 16-19 recite limitations that are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further narrow the independent claim(s) which recite one or more judicial exceptions. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas.
Claims 5 and 19 further recite setting up a chat room. The use of a chat room is implemented at a high level of generality (i.e. as simply using the technology) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already pre-sent when the steps are considered separately. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(h).)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(II):
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
The claim elements which recite additional elements are:
Claim 5:
“setting up an online chat room for the subset of the entities;”
Claim 19:
“set up a chat room for the subset of the entities;”
Examiner incorporates the corresponding rationale provided in Step 2A Prong Two herein by carrying over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) – (c), (e), (f) and (h).
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. These additional element recite do not recite any insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatib et al. (US 2020/0099530 A1 hereinafter Khatib) in view of Detres et al. (US 2020/0389301 A1 hereinafter Detres).
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method of managing deal data using blockchain, the method comprising:
receiving, over a Software as a Service network, historical deal data related to a set of different entities; (Khatib discloses the deal platform may consist the cloud case service such as PaaS/Platform as a service, Issa/Infrastructure as a service and SaaS/Software as a service and utilize (i.e. receive) the historical data (i.e. deal data) associated with the parties (i.e. different entities. See at least paragraphs [0048], [0051], [0105], and [0127].)
filtering the set of entities to determine a filtered subset associated with data regarding a shared interest type; (Khatib discloses the deal room platform utilized cognitive process to classify (i.e. filter) and identify parties (i.e. entities) interested (i.e. share interest) in transacting with the party associated with the incoming document (i.e. data) such as a customer contract (i.e. filter subset). See at least paragraphs [0050] and [0051].)
generating a set of profiles associated with the subset of entities based on use of a first machine-learning model to analyze the historical deal data; (Khatib discloses the deal room platform may generate documents associated with interest group (i.e. profile) based on the training model (i.e. machine learning model) using historical data. See at least paragraphs [00050]-[0052].)
automatically generating a custom set of filing documents for a single entity from the subset of the investing entities; (Khatib discloses the document generation system may generate (i.e. automatically generate) a customized advisory memo based on the document content contract (i.e. filing document set for a single entity) in which the parties (i.e. investing entities) are interested. See at least paragraphs [0051], [0052]. [and [0069].)
generating a new profile based on the single entity; (Khatib discloses the deal room platform generates documents such as a financial statement (i.e. new profile) associated with the stock option content (i.e. single entity). See at least paragraphs [0052], [0081] and [0101].)
verifying accreditation statuses of the subset of the investing entities by reference to an immutable record of accreditation status on the blockchain; (Khatib discloses the deal platform may analyze (i.e. verify) the executive stock option and a number of shares allocated to each executive stock option and a vesting schedule for each stock option (i.e. accreditation status of subset of investing entities) which may utilize the documents/stock options associated with the blockchain. See at least paragraphs [0052], [0103], [0106], [0114], and [0117].)
securely recording on the blockchain an auditable record of terms and commitments; and (Khatib discloses the ledger management system mains a cryptographic ledger that records deal actions associated with the blockchain where the deal may include smart contracts extracting contract provisions (i.e. terms and commitments). See at least paragraphs [0052], [0081], [0102]-[0103], [0106][, [0114] and [0117].)
generating a smart contract describing a deal between the subset of investing entities, wherein the smart contract codifies a conditional hold on access to tokens until deal conditions specified by the smart contract are determined to have been met. (Khatib discloses the deal room platform may provide the smart contract based on documentation, transaction and records such as from the acquisition deal associated with the buyer, seller and investor (i.e. subset of investing entities). See at least paragraphs [0048], [0052], [0061]. Khatib does not disclose codified a conditional hold on access to tokens until deal conditions specified by the smart contract are determined to have been met (i.e. an escrow).)
Although Khatib does disclose setting up smart contracts relating to deal actions and contract terms and conditions, they might not explicitly disclose an escrow on the tokens for said contract. Detres teaches a smart contract may include an escrow service (i.e. a conditional hold on access to tokens until deal conditions specified by the smart contract are determined to have been met) where the tokens are release when at least two of three people agree on release. See at least paragraphs [0093] and [0096].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the escrow service including consensus release of Detres in the system of Khatib because Detres additionally teaches the motivation that an escrow may be required in case of disputes that arise between a user or portfolio company of the system. See at least paragraph [0096].
Also, including the escrow service including consensus release of Detres in the system of Khatib is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 3
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
maintaining a plurality of tokens in a blockchain database; and (A blockchain escrow for tokens is already taught by the combination with Detres as shown above in Claim 1.)
releasing a set of tokens between the subset of entities upon completion of the deal conditions. (A blockchain escrow for tokens is already taught by the combination with Detres as shown above in Claim 1.)
Claim 4
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising validating the release of the tokens based on one or more consensus rules that require at least a percentage of validators to agree on the token release. (A blockchain escrow with consensus release is already taught by the combination with Detres as shown above in Claim 1.)
Claim 5
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
setting up an online chat room for the subset of the entities; and (Khatib teaches the deal room (i.e. chat room) may have a workflow that includes questions and answers to be exchanged. See at least paragraph [0119].)
recording one or more messages and authorizations based on the messages in the chat room, wherein the authorizations are recorded in the blockchain. (Khatib discloses the workflow recorded on the cryptographic ledger including electronically signing documents (i.e. messages of authorization). See at least paragraph [0119].)
Claim 6
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating one or more reports of performance over time associated with at least one of the deal or the subset of the entities; and (Khatib discloses generation of memos relating to the deal including quarterly earnings reports (i.e. performance over time). See at least paragraphs [0052] and [0079].)
determining compliance of the regulatory requirements by the subset of the entities based on the one or more reports. (Khatib discloses receiving information from the Securities and Exchange Commission to aid in classifications. (i.e. regulatory compliance). See at least paragraph [0059]. Khatib discloses generation of memos relating to the deal including quarterly earnings reports (i.e. SEC reporting). See at least paragraphs [0052] and [0079].)
Claim 7
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising generating one or more reports that include real-time data and insights on performance and deal progress by accessing blockchain-based transaction records. (Khatib discloses smart contract defining various tasks that must be completed before a next step can be performed (i.e. report based on insights of performance and deal progress). See at least paragraph [0119]. Khatib discloses including the block identifier of the most recently added block to the state change event record (i.e. real-time data based on accessing blockchain transaction records). See at least paragraph [0108].)
Claim 8
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating one or more predictions regarding one or more of the entities based on use of the first machine learning model to analyze the historical deal data; and (Khatib discloses predicting risk associated with a deal being hosted (i.e. regarding the one or more entities) using machine learning trained on previous deals (i.e. historical deal data). See at least paragraphs [0011]-[0013].)
updating one or more respective profiles based on the predictions. (Khatib discloses storing the risk assessment memo in the organizational structure. See at least paragraph [0012]. Khatib discloses determining documents likely to be missing (i.e. profile) from a hosted deal based on the risk prediction. See at least paragraph [0013].)
Claim 9
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
using a second machine-learning model to analyze the historical deal data correlated to a profile of a selected one of the entities; and (Khatib discloses predicting risk associated with a deal being hosted (i.e. regarding the one or more entities) using machine learning trained on previous similar deals (i.e. correlated historical deal data). See at least paragraphs [0011]-[0013].)
outputting one or more respective sets of deals selected for the selected entity. (Khatib discloses risk assessment determining if a deal is likely to be successful or unsuccessful (i.e. outputting suggested set of deals for the entity). See at least paragraph [0052].)
Claim 10
The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the second machine-learning model identifies the sets of deals in accordance one or more weights selected based on the profile of the selected entity and training data that include respective goals and the respective risk tolerance. (Khatib discloses assigning weights to each respective risk prediction score based on an objective (i.e. goal and risk tolerance) associated with the deal. See at least paragraph [0097]. Khatib discloses predicting risk associated with a deal being hosted (i.e. in accordance with the one or more entities) using machine learning trained (i.e. selecting weights) on previous similar deals (i.e. goal and risk tolerance based historical deal data). See at least paragraphs [0011]-[0013].)
Claim 11
The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein filtering the set of entities to determine the filtered subset associated with data regarding the shared interest type includes using a third machine-learning model to analyze the historical deal data. (Khatib discloses using machine learning to identify potential buyers, sellers, or inventors. See at least paragraph [0050]. Khatib discloses machine learning may be trained on historical data (i.e. historical deal data). See at least paragraph [0013].)
Claim 12
The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the third machine-learning model determines the filtered subset in accordance with one or more weights selected based on training data that include a set of deal data associated with respective goals and respective risk tolerance. (Khatib discloses assigning weights to each respective risk prediction score based on an objective (i.e. goal and risk tolerance) associated with the deal. See at least paragraph [0097]. Khatib discloses predicting risk associated with a deal being hosted (i.e. in accordance with the one or more entities) using machine learning trained (i.e. selecting weights) on previous similar deals (i.e. goal and risk tolerance based historical deal data). See at least paragraphs [0011]-[0013].)
Claim 14
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the deal conditions includes at least one of a specific legal structure, a statement of the purpose and investment strategy within the Software as a Service network, a list of user investors and specific amounts contributed by each user investor, governance structure, decision-making processes, or voting rights. (Khatib discloses establishing class of users for a deal wherein the class determines who has voting rights. See at least paragraph [0060].)
Claim 15
An integrated deal management and blockchain system comprising:
a communication interface that communicates over a communication network with a Software as a Service network platform to receive historical deal data related to a set of different entities and with a blockchain; and (Khatib discloses communication system interface and network. See at least paragraphs [0064] and Fig. 2. Khatib discloses the deal platform may consist the cloud case service such as PaaS/Platform as a service, Issa/Infrastructure as a service and SaaS/Software as a service and utilize (i.e. receive) the historical data (i.e. deal data) associated with the parties (i.e. different entities. See at least paragraphs [0048], [0051], [0105], and [0127].)
a processor that executes instructions stored in memory, wherein the processor executes the instructions to: (Khatib discloses non-transitory memory storing instructions executed on a processor. See at least paragraph [0121].)
…
automatically generate a custom set of filing forms for a single entity from the subset of the investing entities; (Khatib discloses the document generation system may generate (i.e. automatically generate) a customized advisory memo based on the document content contract (i.e. filing form set for a single entity) in which the parties (i.e. investing entities) are interested. See at least paragraphs [0051], [0052]. [and [0069].)
…
The remainder of Claim 15 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 16
The system of claim 15, further comprising memory that stores communication logic executable to exchange data of the smart contract with a blockchain database of the blockchain. (Khatib discloses smart contract establishing workflow in communication with the blockchain cryptographic ledger. See at least paragraph [0119].)
Claim 17
The system of claim 16, wherein at least one node of the Software as a Service network executes virtual machine logic to incorporate the data of the smart contract into the blockchain database. (Khatib disclose software may be embodied as Infrastructure as a Service (i.e. virtual machine) using virtual ports. See at least paragraphs [0125] and [0127] )
Claim 18
Claim 18 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 4 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim 19
The system of claim 15, wherein the processor executes further instructions to:
set up a chat room for the subset of the entities; and (Khatib teaches the deal room (i.e. chat room) may have a workflow that includes questions and answers to be exchanged as well as . See at least paragraph [0119]. Khatib teaches the deal room (i.e. chat room) may have a workflow that includes questions and answers to be exchanged. See at least paragraph [0119].)
record one or more messages and authorizations based on the messages in the chat room, wherein the authorizations are recorded in the blockchain. (Khatib discloses the workflow recorded on the cryptographic ledger including electronically signing documents (i.e. messages of authorization). See at least paragraph [0119].)
Claim 20
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions executable by a computing system to perform a method of managing deal data using blockchain, the method comprising: (Khatib discloses non-transitory memory storing instructions executed on a processor. See at least paragraph [0121]. Khatib discloses utilization on blockchain. See at least paragraph [0002].)
…
The remainder of Claim 20 is substantially similar to the corresponding elements in Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using similar reasoning.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatib et al. (US 2020/0099530 A1 hereinafter Khatib) in view of Detres et al. (US 2020/0389301 A1 hereinafter Detres) further in view of Saraniecki et al. (US 2022/0261791 A1 hereinafter Saraniecki).
Claim 2
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a triggering event for another condition for lowering risk based on the profiles of the subset of investing entities; and (Khatib discloses the deal room platform may output the prediction score which is less than a threshold (i.e. triggering event) where the deal may be successful (i.e. lower the risk for successful) based on documents such as an earning statement (i.e. based on the investing entities). See at least paragraphs [0097] and [0101].)
automatically swapping at least one of the tokens for one or more risk mitigation tokens. (The combined system of Khatib/Detres does not disclose automatically swapping at least one of the tokens for one or more risk mitigation tokens.)
The combined system of Khatib/Detres might not explicitly disclose automatically swapping at least one of the tokens for one or more risk mitigation tokens. Saraniecki teaches each node may simultaneously exchange offset token from a token asset (i.e. automatically swamping a token for a risk mitigation token). See at least paragraph [0168].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include swapping an offset token with a token asset as taught by Saraniecki in the combined system of Khatib/Detres because Saraniecki additionally teaches the motivation that this offsets the risk a node bears in delivering its token/asset. See at least paragraph [0168].
Also, including swapping an offset token with a token asset as taught by Saraniecki in the combined system of Khatib/Detres is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatib et al. (US 2020/0099530 A1 hereinafter Khatib) in view of Detres et al. (US 2020/0389301 A1 hereinafter Detres) further in view of Tietzen et al. (US 2019/0392489 A1 hereinafter Tietzen).
Claim 13
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a data record regarding a new gift transfer; (The combined system of Khatib/Detres does not disclose the features of Claim 13.)
conducting compliance verification of the data record in relation to one or more regulatory standards, wherein conducting the compliance verification includes determining one or more account contributions suitable for the new gift transfer; and (The combined system of Khatib/Detres does not disclose the features of Claim 13.)
generating an analysis based on the determined account contributions. (The combined system of Khatib/Detres does not disclose the features of Claim 13.)
The combined system of Khatib/Detres does not disclose the features of Claim 13. Teitzen teaches receiving a donation (i.e. new gift transfer) and retaining it. See at least paragraph [0024]. Tietzen teaches using data including amount to determine which regulations should apply to a donation. See at least paragraph [0070]. Tietzen further teaches calculating an amount of a donation to be made and permitting the account holder to transact based on the amount (i.e. generating an analysis based on the amount). See at least paragraphs [0058]-[0059].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to enable gift transfer, apply regulatory requirements and perform analysis on said gift transfers as taught by Tietzen in the combined system of Khatib/Detres because Tietzen additionally teaches the motivation that this enables a merchant to make an auditable demonstration that there is a one hundred percent (100%) passthrough of each merchant's donation to each beneficiary of a consumer's choice. See at least paragraph [0003].
Also, enabling gift transfer, applying regulatory requirements and performing analysis on said gift transfers as taught by Tietzen in the combined system of Khatib/Detres because Tietzen is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Salisbury (WO 2024081348 A1) discloses tokenizing property assets in order to execute smart contracts and record property transactions.
Nguyen-Hoang et al. (“Advancing Scholarship Management: A Blockchain-Enhanced Platform With Privacy-Secure Identities and AI-Driven Recommendations”) discloses applying blockchain for audit grant distribution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ADAM HILMANTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3691