DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/24/2025 and the Preliminary Amendment filed on 08/24/2025.
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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein in the token issuance transfer unit and the computational power management unit, a token typified by a point or the like is taken as a unit of transaction”, in which the use of “or the like” is open-ended and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to an apparatus, a process and manufacture, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced.
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising:
computational power value evaluation unit that evaluates a predetermined value of a right to utilize a predetermined unit of computational power defined by a plurality of indices provided from a computational power owner.
Claim 2 recites:
token issuance transfer unit that executes control of issuing, to the computational power owner, a token for enforcing the right, and transferring the token from the computational power owner to a computational power user at the predetermined value; and
computational power management unit that executes control of receiving the predetermined unit of computational power described in the token from the computational power owner to which the token has been issued and causing the computational power user to which the token has been transferred to receive the predetermined unit of computational power described in the token.
Claim 3 recites:
wherein in a case where a plurality of tokens having at least some of the indices identical to each other is utilized, the computational power management unit executes control of causing the computational power user to receive the predetermined unit of computational power with priority given to a token with a high predetermined priority defined in advance among the plurality of tokens.
Claim 4 recites:
matching unit that executes control of listing a predetermined token and awarding the predetermined token to a computational power user satisfying a predetermined bidding condition among a plurality of computational power users, wherein the computational power value evaluation unit evaluates a value of the awarded token based on the predetermined bidding condition.
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the computational power value evaluation unit selects a token that satisfies a condition specified by the computational power user, and recommends the token to the computational power user.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the computational power management unit provides a computational power to a computational power user that satisfies a condition specified by the computational power owner.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein in the token issuance transfer unit and the computational power management unit, a token typified by a point or the like is taken as a unit of transaction.
Claim 8 recites:
An information processing method executed by an information processing device, comprising: a step of evaluating a predetermined value of a right to utilize a predetermined unit of computational power defined by a plurality of indices provided from a computational power owner.
Claim 9 recites:
A program causing a computer to execute control processing including a step of evaluating a predetermined value of a right to utilize a predetermined unit of computational power defined by a plurality of indices provided from a computational power owner.
Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers evaluating and exchanging usage right of resource. Evaluating and exchange usage right manage a contractual relationship and is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes)
This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “processing device” as a mere tool to perform the … steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply.
For example, the limitation “computational power value evaluation unit that evaluates a predetermined value of a right to utilize a predetermined unit of computational power defined by a plurality of indices provided from a computational power owner” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of evaluating the predetermined value of a right to utilize a predetermined unit of computational power;
the limitation “token issuance transfer unit that executes control of issuing, to the computational power owner, a token for enforcing the right, and transferring the token from the computational power owner to a computational power user at the predetermined value” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of issuing token for enforcing the right and transferring the token from computational power owner to a user at the predetermined value;
the limitation “wherein in a case where a plurality of tokens having at least some of the indices identical to each other is utilized, the computational power management unit executes control of causing the computational power user to receive the predetermined unit of computational power with priority given to a token with a high predetermined priority defined in advance among the plurality of tokens” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of assigning some token with a higher priority to be utilized;
the limitation “matching unit that executes control of listing a predetermined token and awarding the predetermined token to a computational power user satisfying a predetermined bidding condition among a plurality of computational power users, wherein the computational power value evaluation unit evaluates a value of the awarded token based on the predetermined bidding condition” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of listing a predetermined token and awarding the token to a computational power user satisfying a predetermined bidding condition;
the limitation “wherein the computational power value evaluation unit selects a token that satisfies a condition specified by the computational power user, and recommends the token to the computational power user” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting and recommending a token that satisfies a condition specified by the computational user to the computational power user;
the limitation “wherein the computational power management unit provides a computational power to a computational power user that satisfies a condition specified by the computational power owner” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of providing the computational power to a computational power user that satisfies a condition specified by the computational power owner;
the limitation “wherein in the token issuance transfer unit and the computational power management unit, a token typified by a point or the like is taken as a unit of transaction” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processing device to apply the Judicial Exception step of using the token as a unit of transaction.
Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the additional elements in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically. The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “unit” are nominally appended to the steps of the Judicial Exception, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer.
Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception.
The claim does 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 element of using a processing device to evaluate and exchange usage right amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No)
Therefore, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ward, Jr. et al. (US 9747635).
As per claim 1, Ward, Jr. discloses an apparatus comprising:
computational power value evaluation unit that evaluates a predetermined value of a right to utilize a predetermined unit of computational power defined by a plurality of indices provided from a computational power owner. (See Ward, Jr. Col. 6 Line 63 – Col. 7 Line 13 and Col. 13 Line 36-57)
As per claim 2, Ward, Jr. discloses:
token issuance transfer unit that executes control of issuing, to the computational power owner, a token for enforcing the right, and transferring the token from the computational power owner to a computational power user at the predetermined value; (See Ward, Jr. Col. 14 Line 3-20)
computational power management unit that executes control of receiving the predetermined unit of computational power described in the token from the computational power owner to which the token has been issued and causing the computational power user to which the token has been transferred to receive the predetermined unit of computational power described in the token. (See Ward, Jr. Col. 14 Line 21-39)
As per claim 4, Ward, Jr. discloses:
matching unit that executes control of listing a predetermined token and awarding the predetermined token to a computational power user satisfying a predetermined bidding condition among a plurality of computational power users, wherein the computational power value evaluation unit evaluates a value of the awarded token based on the predetermined bidding condition. (See Ward, Jr. Col. 8 Line 32-56 and Col. 13 Line 36-57)
As per claim 5, Ward, Jr. discloses:
wherein the computational power value evaluation unit selects a token that satisfies a condition specified by the computational power user, and recommends the token to the computational power user (See Ward, Jr. Col. 13 Line 36-57)
As per claim 6, Ward, Jr. discloses:
wherein the computational power management unit provides a computational power to a computational power user that satisfies a condition specified by the computational power owner. (See Ward, Jr. Col. 8 Line 32-56)
As per claim 7, Ward, Jr. discloses:
wherein in the token issuance transfer unit and the computational power management unit, a token typified by a point or the like is taken as a unit of transaction. (See Ward, Jr. Col. 13 Line 36-57. The “reserved instance” is a token as a unit for transaction.)
As per claim 8, Ward, Jr. discloses a method comprising:
An information processing method executed by an information processing device, comprising: a step of evaluating a predetermined value of a right to utilize a predetermined unit of computational power defined by a plurality of indices provided from a computational power owner. (See Ward, Jr. Col. 6 Line 63 – Col. 7 Line 13 and Col. 13 Line 36-57)
As per claim 9, Ward, Jr. discloses a program causing a computer to execute control processing including: a step of evaluating a predetermined value of a right to utilize a predetermined unit of computational power defined by a plurality of indices provided from a computational power owner. (See Ward, Jr. Col. 6 Line 63 – Col. 7 Line 13 and Col. 13 Line 36-57)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, Jr. et al. (US 9747635) in view of Official Notice.
Ward, Jr. does not teach wherein in a case where a plurality of tokens having at least some of the indices identical to each other is utilized, the computational power management unit executes control of causing the computational power user to receive the predetermined unit of computational power with priority given to a token with a high predetermined priority defined in advance among the plurality of tokens.
Official Notice is taken that assigning a higher priority right to security, such as class A shares and class B shares, is a common practice in the financial industry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the computational power exchange system taught by Ward, Jr. with teaching from common practice in the financial industry to assign some of the usage right representing token with a higher priority. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as buyers may pay a premium for a higher priority.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F.
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, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights