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 the Application
This is a Non-Final Action in response to the Response to Election Requirement filed on 09/28/2025.
Claims 1-5, 15-18, and 19-21 have been withdrawn.
Claims 19-21 are new; however such claims are directed to a different invention. Thereby the claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 6-14 are pending and examined herein.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5 and 15-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/28/2025.
Newly submitted claims 19-21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention elected by the Applicant for the following reasons: Claims 19-21 are directed to a method of encoding an offeror’s purchase while the elected claims are directed to evaluate purchase offer conditional statement hypotheses.
Accordingly, claims 19-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 6-14 are 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 6 recites the limitation "the distributed ledger" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the negotiation cycle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. It is not clear to which negotiation cycle the Applicant is referring to.
Claim 7 discloses “the method of claim 6 of executing nested conditional statement transaction smart legal contracts 1024 in which a seller (offeree):…” However claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, is not related to executing nested conditional statement transactions as recited in claim 7. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 7 is further limiting claim 6 or if claim 7 is a different process. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “The method of claim 6 further comprising the step of executing nested conditional statement transaction smart legal contracts 1024 in which a seller (offeree):…”
Claim 7 discloses the limitation “a purchase offer block 1011”, however it is unclear if this term is the same or different from the term as introduced in claim 6 as “purchase offer 1011…”. It is noticed that the Applicant is using the same numerical reference with a different label. For examination purposes the terms are interpreted as been different elements.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the steps of bills of process 1028smart contract" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly and the scope of the claim is not clear. It is not clear what steps are covered under the claimed limitation. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the purchase offer 1011 terms" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the negotiation cycle of a transaction smart contract 1024 contract processing" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly and the scope of the claim is not clear. It is not clear what steps are covered under the claimed limitation. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the offeror’s purchase offer 1011" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the offerees’s transaction smart contract" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the buyer" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the term is related to the “extramural buyer (offeror)” or if this term is a different term. The Examiner is advised to keep consistency among the terminology to avoid indefiniteness. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the extramural offeror" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the term is related to the “extramural buyer (offeror)” or if this term is a different term. The Examiner is advised to keep consistency among the terminology to avoid indefiniteness. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 discloses “the method of claim 6 of generating an extramural purchase offer 1011 block…” However claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, is not related to generating an extramural purchase offer block as recited in claim 8. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 8 is further limiting claim 6 or if claim 8 is a different process. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “The method of claim 6 further comprising the step of generating an extramural purchase offer 1011 block…”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the terms and conditions of a purchase offer 1011" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the description of the resource" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the asset or resource acquired" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the transaction" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the enterprise’s methods of accounting" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 9 discloses “the method of claim 6 of executing intramural cascading transaction 1027 smart logistical contracts…” However claim 6, from which claim 9 depends, is not related to executing intramural cascading transaction 1027 smart logistical contracts as recited in claim 9. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 9 is further limiting claim 6 or if claim 9 is a different process. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “The method of claim 6 further comprising the step of executing intramural cascading transaction 1027 smart logistical contracts…”
Claim 10 discloses “The method of claim 6 of executing bills of process1028 smart contracts required to deliver an asset or resource…” However claim 6, from which claim 10 depends, is not related to executing bills as recited in claim 10. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 10 is further limiting claim 6 or if claim 10 is a different process. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “The method of claim 6 further comprising the step of executing bills of process1028 smart contracts required to deliver an asset or resource…”
Claim 11 discloses “The method of claim 6 of executing the updating 1035 status smart contract…” However claim 6, from which claim 11 depends, is not related to executing the updating 1035 status smart contract as recited in claim 11. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 11 is further limiting claim 6 or if claim 11 is a different process. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “The method of claim 6 further comprising the step of executing the updating 1035 status smart contract…”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the updating 1035 status smart contract " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 12 discloses “The method of claim 6 of reserving an asset or resource in a scheduling 1036 smart contract…” However claim 6, from which claim 12 depends, is not related to reserving an asset or resource as recited in claim 12. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 12 is further limiting claim 6 or if claim 12 is a different process. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “The method of claim 6 further comprising the step of reserving an asset or resource in a scheduling 1036 smart contract…”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the bill of process smart contract" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 13 discloses “The method of claim 6 of executing method of accounting 1030 smart contracts…” However claim 6, from which claim 13 depends, is not related to an executing method of accounting smart contracts as recited in claim 13. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 13 is further limiting claim 6 or if claim 13 is a different process. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “The method of claim 6 further comprising the step of executing method of accounting 1030 smart contracts…”
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the enterprise’s methods of accounting" and “the asset or resource acquired” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the terms were not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 14 discloses “The method of claim 6 of executing reporting 1037 smart contracts…” However claim 6, from which claim 14 depends, is not related to executing reporting smart contracts as recited in claim 14. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 14 is further limiting claim 6 or if claim 14 is a different process. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as “The method of claim 6 further comprising the step of executing reporting 1037 smart contracts…”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the value 1002" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the format of financial statements and disclosures" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the method of accounting 1030" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the enterprise’s smart contract conditional statements" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis makes the claim indefinite since the term was not introduced properly which makes the scope of the claim unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
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 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 6-14 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Claims 6 recites the abstract idea of recording the financial activity if an enterprise [0018]. In claim 6, this idea is described by the following claim steps:
evaluate a purchase order conditional statement hypotheses in a negotiation cycle of a transaction
compute values
generate additional record or produce financial statements, reports, and, charts and graphs that summarize the values, schedule or other enterprise management information.
This idea falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards commercial interactions (sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The noted abstract idea is also directed to fundamental economic practices such as that required during recording the financial activity of an enterprise.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
smart contract; and
distributed ledger.
However, using a computer environment such as a smart contract in a distributed ledger amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Recording the financial activity of an enterprise can reasonably be performed by pen and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring a smart contract perform the steps.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to generic recitation of the technology or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 15 and 20 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 7-17 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic technology recitation as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by introducing executing nested conditional statement transaction smart legal contracts 1024 in which a seller (offeree): receives a purchase offer block 1011 from an extramural buyer (offeror); evaluates the purchase offer 1011 conditional statement hypotheses; and, by following the steps of bills of process 1028smart contract, determines if the purchase offer 1011 terms are deliverable or acceptable in the negotiation cycle of a transaction smart 1024 contract processing; and if the offeror's purchase offer 1011 terms are acceptable, then the offeree's transaction smart contract generates provisional 1007 resource reservation 1012 blocks and provisional 1007 transaction journal entries 1002 of downstream intramural purchase 1025 transactions through delivery to the buyer; and if offeree/seller cannot accept the purchase offer 1011 terms, then the offeree/seller counteroffers amended purchase offer 1011 terms to the extramural offeror that the offeree/seller can fulfill. Evaluating a purchase order to verify if the terms are acceptable or not is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a smart contract. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 8 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation generating an extramural purchase offer 1011 block by executing transaction 1025 smart legal contract that includes the terms and conditions of a purchase offer 1011 including, at a minimum, the description of the resource to be purchased, quantity, price, delivery timing and credit terms; and additional information to record the asset or resource acquired upon completion of the transaction; and all prospective entries required by the enterprise's methods of accounting until sold, disposed, or, otherwise converted into another asset or resource. Generating a purchase offer is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a smart contract. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 9 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation executing intramural, cascading transaction 1027 smart logistical contracts which follow bills of process 1028 smart contract steps to purchase1027 resources from downstream enterprise functions or departments required to fulfill an upstream purchase offer. Executing a transaction is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a smart contract. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 10 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation executing bills of process 1028 smart contracts required to deliver an asset or resource purchased through an extramural 1023 or intramural 1027 transaction smart contract, in which the bills of process 1028 detail sequencing of operations; tools, machinery and labor required to create an asset or resource that ensures every step of the fulfillment process. Executing a bills of process required to deliver an assert or resource is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a smart contract. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 11 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation executing the updating 1035 status smart contract to realize a planned 1006, provisional 1007, or pending 1008 journal entry and underlying values 1002 and reservation 1012 blocks in the distributed ledger. Updating a ledger is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a smart contract. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 12 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation reserving an asset or resource in a scheduling 1036 smart contract for a specified date, time, and duration according to the bill of process smart contract. Reserving an asset or resource in a scheduling system is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a smart contract. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 13 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation executing method of accounting 1030 smart contracts which generate and post current (realized 1004) and prospective (unrealized 1005) accounting adjustments to the distributed ledger for an asset or resource purchased through a transaction 1023 smart contract in accordance with the enterprise's methods of accounting for the asset or resource acquired. Executing accounting adjustments in a ledger is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a smart contract. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 14 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation executing reporting 1037 smart contracts which: sum the value 1002 blocks by account groupings in the format of financial statements and disclosures required by the method of accounting 1030; include value 1002 blocks in mathematical computations: or, fulfill hypotheses in the enterprise's smart contract conditional statements. Generating financial statements and disclosures as required by an accounting method is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a smart contract. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeganathan (US Patent Publication 2022/0172203).
Regarding claim 6, Jeganathan discloses a method of executing smart contracts 1020 in the distributed ledger (abstract, [040]), comprising the steps to:
evaluate purchase offer 1011 conditional statement hypotheses in the negotiation cycle of a transaction smart contract processing ([0068] FIGS. 5A-D illustrate exemplary user interfaces for making an offer to purchase a resale product. In addition to the authenticity information and other information that can be stored on a distributed ledger (e.g., distributed ledger 318 in FIG. 3), transaction details regarding a resale can also be stored on the distributed ledger. Storing the resale details can include establishing a communication session or workflow procedure for exchanging communications between two or more devices used by entities involved in the transaction, and logging the data exchanged on the communication channels on the distributed ledger. A buyer can trigger the session or workflow procedure. Subsequently, the session or workflow procedure terminates once the transaction is, for example, agreed upon or rejected. Once the data is logged, a device of an entity can retrieve the data from the distributed ledger. Thus, each entity involved in the resale transaction can authenticate the data that is exchanged during the resale communication. In the following description, terms such as buyer, seller, reseller, and the like are used exemplary entities that can be involved in a resale transaction. Further see [0070-0073] which discloses the negotiation cycle.);
compute values ([073] Similar to the offer to purchase, the reseller can counter by altering the number of units and/or the price per unit. After altering the terms, the reseller can update the offer. Similar to the actions performed by the buyer, the actions performed by the reseller can be logged on the distributed ledger such that another party (e.g., the buyer) can authenticate the reseller's actions. [0078] In some embodiments, security measures can also be implemented, as mentioned above. In the example above, where the reseller made a posting for resale widget for $200, when the original sale price was $100, the marketplace platform can flag the posting as potentially erroneous. For example, prior the publishing the posting, the reseller may receive an error message indicating that the price is higher than the original sale price. The marketplace platform can execute the error message based on retrieving the prior transaction details of the widget and comparing it to the resale posting. When discrepancies are found, an error message can be populated. Similarly, a potential buyer may receive an error message when viewing a resale posting with discrepancies. );
generate additional record blocks in the distributed ledger, or, produce financial statements, reports, and, charts and graphs that summarize the values, schedule or other enterprise management information ([0075] As mentioned above, in addition to the transaction history of the product, the data from the interactions (e.g., accept, reject or counter) between the reseller and buyer can be stored on the distributed ledger. As described in FIG. 3, the buyer and reseller can interact with each other on the marketplace platform on their respective devices. The transactions that are facilitated by the marketplace platform are then stored on the distributed ledger. For example, when a reseller makes a posting for the resale of a product, the data from the posting can be stored on the distributed ledger. For example, the reseller's device can be connected via a communication network and a server to the distributed ledger. Thus, the data regarding the resale post can be transmitted for storage on the distributed ledger. Similarly, data from other actions the reseller and/or buyer on the marketplace platform can be stored on the distributed ledger. [0079] Accordingly, the interactions between a reseller and potential buyer can be stored on the distributed ledger. Each party can subsequently retrieve information from the distributed ledger to verify aspects and terms of a resale posting. In some embodiments, the marketplace platform can, based on a comparison of data stored on the distributed ledger and data from the resale posting, execute error messages indicating discrepancies.).
Regarding claim 7, Jeganathan discloses executing nested conditional statement transaction smart legal contracts 1024 in which a seller (offeree):
receives a purchase offer block 1011 from an extramural buyer (offeror) ([0071] Alternatively, the buyer can decide to make an offer to buy the widgets on different terms. The buyer can decide to vary the number of widgets, the price per widget, or both. To continue the scenario in the example above, the buyer can make an offer to buy fifty widgets at $50 per widget, rather than all hundred widgets. Or, the buyer can make an offer to buy all hundred widgets at $40 per widget. Or, the buyer can make an offer to buy fifty widgets and $40 per widget. In this manner, the buyer can make an offer based on the resale posting with different terms. );
evaluates the purchase offer 1011 conditional statement hypotheses ([0073] In return, the reseller can choose to accept, reject, or counter the offer.); and,
by following the steps of bills of process 1028smart contract, determines if the purchase offer 1011 terms are deliverable or acceptable in the negotiation cycle of a transaction smart 1024 contract processing; and
if the offeror's purchase offer 1011 terms are acceptable, then the offeree's transaction smart contract generates provisional 1007 resource reservation 1012 blocks and provisional 1007 transaction journal entries 1002 of downstream intramural purchase 1025 transactions through delivery to the buyer; and if offeree/seller cannot accept the purchase offer 1011 terms, then the offeree/seller counteroffers amended purchase offer 1011 terms to the extramural offeror that the offeree/seller can fulfill ([073]FIGS. 6A-C illustrate exemplary user interfaces from the reseller's perspective from which the seller can respond to an offer. If the reseller accepts the offer, the transaction is completed in accordance with the offer terms. If the reseller rejects the offer, the transaction is not completed. If the reseller decides to counter the offer, the reseller can adjust the terms. Similar to the offer to purchase, the reseller can counter by altering the number of units and/or the price per unit. After altering the terms, the reseller can update the offer. Similar to the actions performed by the buyer, the actions performed by the reseller can be logged on the distributed ledger such that another party (e.g., the buyer) can authenticate the reseller's actions. ).
Regarding claim 8, Jeganathan discloses generating an extramural purchase offer 1011 block by executing transaction 1025 smart legal contract that includes the terms and conditions of a purchase offer 1011 including, at a minimum, the description of the resource to be purchased, quantity, price, delivery timing and credit terms (See Figure 5D including the offer details such as unit price, quantity, shipping delivery, total among other data. [0073] In return, the reseller can choose to accept, reject, or counter the offer. FIGS. 6A-C illustrate exemplary user interfaces from the reseller's perspective from which the seller can respond to an offer. If the reseller accepts the offer, the transaction is completed in accordance with the offer terms. If the reseller rejects the offer, the transaction is not completed. If the reseller decides to counter the offer, the reseller can adjust the terms. Similar to the offer to purchase, the reseller can counter by altering the number of units and/or the price per unit. After altering the terms, the reseller can update the offer. Similar to the actions performed by the buyer, the actions performed by the reseller can be logged on the distributed ledger such that another party (e.g., the buyer) can authenticate the reseller's actions. ); and additional information to record the asset or resource acquired upon completion of the transaction; and all prospective entries required by the enterprise's methods of accounting until sold, disposed, or, otherwise converted into another asset or resource ([0075] As mentioned above, in addition to the transaction history of the product, the data from the interactions (e.g., accept, reject or counter) between the reseller and buyer can be stored on the distributed ledger. As described in FIG. 3, the buyer and reseller can interact with each other on the marketplace platform on their respective devices. The transactions that are facilitated by the marketplace platform are then stored on the distributed ledger. For example, when a reseller makes a posting for the resale of a product, the data from the posting can be stored on the distributed ledger. For example, the reseller's device can be connected via a communication network and a server to the distributed ledger. Thus, the data regarding the resale post can be transmitted for storage on the distributed ledger. Similarly, data from other actions the reseller and/or buyer on the marketplace platform can be stored on the distributed ledger.).
Regarding claim 9, Jeganathan discloses executing intramural, cascading transaction 1027 smart logistical contracts which follow bills of process 1028 smart contract steps to purchase1027 resources from downstream enterprise functions or departments required to fulfill an upstream purchase offer ([0076] From a potential buyer's perspective, the potential buyer can view the resale posting on the marketplace platform. Based on the actions of the potential buyer on the marketplace platform, the device can retrieve via the communication network and the server, the posting of the resale from the distributed ledger. The device can also retrieve other details from the transaction history of the product for resale such as the original sale details. From this, the potential buyer can view various details regarding the product for resale. [0077] For instance, an original buyer of 1,000 widgets at $100 per widget can make a resale posting for the 800 of the widgets at $200 per widget. The posting can be published on the marketplace platform and stored on the distributed ledger. A potential buyer can, upon viewing the resale posting, request retrieval of other details of the product and/or posting from the distributed ledger. Thus, the potential buyer can trace the transaction details of the widget and view the terms of the original sale. Here, the potential buyer can see that the original sale was for the $100 per widget, and thus, can make a counter offer for below the original sale price. ).
Regarding claim 10, Jeganathan discloses executing bills of process 1028 smart contracts required to deliver an asset or resource purchased through an extramural 1023 or intramural 1027 transaction smart contract, in which the bills of process 1028 detail sequencing of operations; tools, machinery and labor required to create an asset or resource that ensures every step of the fulfillment process ( [0058] The device 304, 308, and 312 can include a local storage that can store authentication data including lists of product details and product life cycle events. In some embodiments, the local storage includes non-volatile and/or volatile memory that can store the authentication data as needed and provide it to the resale enabled marketplace manager node 320. The product details are logged into the electronic devices 304, 308, and 312 and the corresponding data are stored as units of authentication data including type attribute and corresponding measure value captured at points in time. Likewise, product life cycle events are units of authentication data each with a type attribute and point in time when the event occurred. For example, manufacturer device 304 can be a personal computer located at the manufacturing facility. An employee at the manufacturing facility can use the manufacturer device 304 to log events that occur at manufacturing facility such as manufacturing milestones, order placement, and shipment. In another example, an electronic device (not shown) can be a device attached to the resale product and autonomously track details such as environmental conditions such as moisture, temperature, etc. In yet another example, an electronic device (not shown) can be the product that is being resold. For instance, the electronic device can be a smartphone which autonomously tracks a variety of details (e.g., location, time). [0059] The electronic devices 304, 308, and 312 can push authentication data out according to a schedule or upon the occurrence of an event in the product like cycle. For example, the electronic devices 304, 308, and 312 can push authentication data out to the resale enabled marketplace manager node 320 when the product is shipped from the manufacturer's facility to the original buyer. In another example, the electronic devices 304, 308, and 312 can push the authentication data based on time period (e.g., weekly, monthly). In yet another example, the resale enabled marketplace manager node 320 can control when the authentication data is pulled from the electronic devices 304, 308, and 312 (e.g., on a schedule, on-demand).).
Regarding claim 11, Jeganathan discloses executing the updating 1035 status smart contract to realize a planned 1006, provisional 1007, or pending 1008 journal entry and underlying values 1002 and reservation 1012 blocks in the distributed ledger ([0066] At 404, the resale manage node obtains the authentication data over the network from the electronic device(s). The resale enabled marketplace manager node is a network node of a system that includes electronic devices and network nodes of the distributed ledger. At 406, the resale enabled marketplace manager node can optionally process the authentication data (e.g., filter, sort, encrypt). At 408, the electronic device or resale manage node can cause the distributed ledger to store the authentication data. At 410, the distributed ledger stores mostly immutable copies of the authentication data across other network notes of a peer-to-peer network. Specifically, each of the peer nodes replicates and stores an identical copy of the units of authentication data and updated independently in accordance with the principles of distributed ledger technologies. Examples of distributed ledgers include a public blockchain or a private blockchain.).
Regarding claim 12, Jeganathan discloses reserving an asset or resource in a scheduling 1036 smart contract for a specified date, time, and duration according to the bill of process smart contract ([0072] The actions performed by the buyer can also be logged in the distributed ledger. For example, if the buyer makes a counter offer to buy fifty widgets at $50 per widget, as in the example above, the terms of the counter offer can be stored in the distributed ledger. In addition to the terms, other data can also be logged in the distributed ledger which can help another party authenticate the counter offer. For example, other data can include the time and date that the counter offer was made.).
Regarding claim 13, Jeganathan discloses executing method of accounting 1030 smart contracts which generate and post current (realized 1004) and prospective (unrealized 1005) accounting adjustments to the distributed ledger for an asset or resource purchased through a transaction 1023 smart contract in accordance with the enterprise's methods of accounting for the asset or resource acquired ([0073] In return, the reseller can choose to accept, reject, or counter the offer. FIGS. 6A-C illustrate exemplary user interfaces from the reseller's perspective from which the seller can respond to an offer. If the reseller accepts the offer, the transaction is completed in accordance with the offer terms. If the reseller rejects the offer, the transaction is not completed. If the reseller decides to counter the offer, the reseller can adjust the terms. Similar to the offer to purchase, the reseller can counter by altering the numb