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 .
Claim Status
The claims filed 6/16/2025 are examined herein.
Claims 1-20 are pending and original.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 1, 2, and 4 contain illegible text.
Fig. 3 contains the typo “Session-frowarder”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: a settlement management domain for maintaining transaction records…
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, the specification discloses a Settlement Service API/Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) (see para. 0039).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-10 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 1 limitation “settlement management domain for maintaining transaction records” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification describes software such as a Settlement Service API/Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) but does not clearly link the claimed “settlement management domain” to any physical component or structure.
Claims 2-10 inherit the deficiency of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the system interacts with a blockchain…” and “wherein the system is configured to facilitate…”. Claims 7-10 additionally recite “wherein the system is further configured to…”. These limitations also render the claims indefinite. The metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined because the recited functional limitations are not clearly linked to any component of the claimed system.
Claims 2-10 inherit the deficiency of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are each directed to a system or method, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The independent claims recite the limitations of:
1. A system for recording and settling transactions in a wireless network environment using blockchain technology, comprising:
a plurality of network operator domains, wherein each of the plurality of network operators domains comprise network infrastructure components;
a first operator domain of the plurality of network operator domains, wherein the first operator domain comprises a gateway for managing device connections and a blockchain interface for managing transaction settlements; and
a settlement management domain for maintaining transaction records for the first operator domain, wherein the system interacts with a blockchain that is configured to record and settle transactions associated with data usage for the first operator domain, and wherein the system is configured to facilitate network operator provisioning, transaction initiation, and settlement.
11. A method for settling transactions in a wireless network environment, comprising the steps of:
converting monetary value into a digital currency;
initiating transactions for a first operator domain;
interacting with a blockchain through a blockchain interface to manage transaction settlements;
maintaining transaction records for multiple network operators in a settlement management domain;
recording and settling transactions through the blockchain; and
facilitating network operator provisioning, transaction initiation, and settlement.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they set forth or describe managing transaction settlement, maintaining transaction records, recording and settling transactions, conversion of currency, and initiating transactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The recited domains and interfaces are just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: wireless network environment (preamble); first operator domain comprising gateway and blockchain interface; settlement management domain; interacting with blockchain
Claim 11: wireless network environment (preamble); interacting with blockchain; settlement management domain
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations are also generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (wireless network environment and blockchain), as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (wireless network environment and blockchain), as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). This does not provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 11 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. With regards to the wireless network environment, gateway, blockchain interface, and settlement domain, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nova Labs (Github repository “novalabsxyz/devdocs”, archived 2/12/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Nova Labs discloses a system for recording and settling transactions in a wireless network environment using blockchain technology, comprising:
a plurality of network operator domains, wherein each of the plurality of network operators domains comprise network infrastructure components (see pp. 5-8: Network Components, Helium Hotspot, Routers, Console);
a first operator domain of the plurality of network operator domains, wherein the first operator domain comprises a gateway for managing device connections (see pp. 52-57: Adding Devices, Console Quickstart) and a blockchain interface for managing transaction settlements (see pp. 7-8, 20-23, 24-38, 61: Blockchain API, Helium Mobile Wallet, The Helium Consensus Protocol, Helium Hotspot);
a settlement management domain for maintaining transaction records for the first operator domain (see pp. 10-11: Blockchain Introduction),
wherein the system interacts with a blockchain configured to record and settle transactions associated with data usage for the first operator domain (see pp. 5-9, 12-14: Network Components, Helium Tokens and Data Credits), and
wherein the system is configured to facilitate network operator provisioning, transaction initiation, and settlement (see pp. 52-57, 24-38, 7-9, 20-23 : Adding Devices, Console Quickstart, Blockchain API, Helium Mobile Wallet, The Helium Consensus Protocol).
Regarding claim 4, Nova Labs discloses wherein the blockchain interface in the first operator domain is configured to interact with the blockchain for real-time settlement of transactions (see The Helium Consensus Protocol).
Regarding claim 5, Nova Labs discloses wherein the settlement management domain maintains the transaction records for the first operator domain using a Settlement Service API to facilitate real-time reporting and settlement verification (see Blockchain API).
Regarding claim 6, Nova Labs discloses wherein the blockchain is configured to ensure secure and transparent settlement of transactions (see The Helium Consensus Protocol, wherein “secure and transparent” is interpreted in view of Applicant’s specification [0028], which describes security and transparency merely as a feature of using a blockchain network).
Regarding claim 7, Nova Labs discloses wherein the system is further configured to facilitate network operator provisioning through a network operator portal (see Adding Devices, Console Quickstart).
Regarding claim 8, Nova Labs discloses wherein the system is further configured to facilitate transaction tracking for each network operator (see Helium Mobile Wallet, Blockchain API) .
Regarding claim 9, Nova Labs discloses wherein the system is further configured to facilitate settlement management through a Settlement Management Application Programming Interface (API) (see Blockchain API).
Regarding claim 11, Nova Labs discloses a method for settling transactions in a wireless network environment, comprising the steps of:
converting monetary value into a digital currency (see Helium Tokens and Data Credits);
initiating transactions for a first operator domain (see Blockchain API, Helium Hotspot);
maintaining transaction records for multiple network operators in a settlement management domain (see Blockchain Introduction);
recording and settling transactions through the blockchain (see Helium Tokens and Data Credits, The Helium Consensus Protocol); and
facilitating network operator provisioning, transaction initiation, and settlement (see Adding Devices, Console Quickstart, Helium Mobile Wallet, The Helium Consensus Protocol).
Regarding claim 15, Nova Labs discloses the step of verifying the initiation of transactions for the first operator domain, and wherein the step of verifying the initiation of transactions comprises comparing the initiated transactions with a predetermined threshold (see Transaction Fees, e.g. 1 Data Credit metered per 24 bytes).
Regarding claim 16, Nova Labs discloses wherein the step of interacting with the blockchain through the blockchain interface comprises monitoring the settlement of transactions by the network operators (see Ledger Hardware Wallet, Mining and Token Rewards/Helium Blockchain Explorer).
Regarding claim 17, Nova Labs discloses wherein the step of maintaining transaction records for multiple network operators in a settlement management domain comprises updating the transaction records in real-time (see Network Components, The Helium Consensus Protocol).
Regarding claim 18, Nova Labs discloses wherein the step of recording and settling transactions through the blockchain comprises recording each transaction in a distributed ledger of the blockchain (see Blockchain Introduction, Network Components).
Regarding claim 19, Nova Labs discloses wherein the step of facilitating network operator provisioning comprises registering the network operator with the first operator domain (see Adding Devices, Console Quickstart).
Regarding claim 20, Nova Labs discloses wherein the step of facilitating transaction initiation comprises receiving a transaction request from the network operator and deducting the corresponding amount of digital currency from the network operator's account (see Ledger Hardware Wallet).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nova Labs (Github “novalabsxyz/devdocs” public repository, archived 2/12/2021) in view of HIP-27 (“HIP-27: Data Credit Support for CBRS 5G on Helium Network”, 5/18/2023).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Nova Labs does not explicitly disclose, but HIP-27 teaches wherein the wireless network environment is a broadband wireless network environment (see pg. 1: e.g., Wi-Fi, LTE, 5G).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Nova Labs to include the feature of HIP-27 to go beyond LoRaWAN and make it possible to build wireless networks using other wireless protocols (see HIP-27, Motivation).
Regarding claim 3, Nova Labs does not explicitly disclose, but HIP-27 teaches wherein the gateway is configured to manage device connections using at least one of WiFi, 4G, 5G, or 6G technologies (see pg. 1: e.g., Wi-Fi, LTE, 5G).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nova Labs to include the feature of HIP-27 to go beyond LoRaWAN and make it possible to build wireless networks using other wireless protocols (see HIP-27, Motivation).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nova Labs (Github “novalabsxyz/devdocs” public repository, archived 2/12/2021) in view of HIP-56 (“HIP-56: Improved State Channel Disputes”, 2/23/2022).
Regarding claim 10, Nova Labs does not explicitly disclose, but HIP-56 teaches facilitating the allocation of transaction records to a state channel in the blockchain (see Detailed Explanation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nova Labs further to include the feature taught by HIP-56 to further facilitate transactions (see HIP-56, Detailed Explanation).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nova Labs (Github “novalabsxyz/devdocs” public repository, archived 2/12/2021) in view of Armstrong (US 2015/0262168 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Nova Labs does not explicitly disclose, but Armstrong teaches wherein the step of converting monetary value into digital currency comprises using a digital currency exchange platform (see para. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nova Labs to include the feature of Armstrong.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in to allow users to exchange local currency into or out of cryptocurrency (see Armstrong, para. 0005).
Regarding claim 14, Armstrong teaches wherein the digital currency exchange platform is configured to provide real-time exchange rates between the monetary value and the digital currency (see para. 0141)
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nin (“FreedomFi ships first cryptocurrency incentivized 5G, CBRS-compatible gateways”, 10/11/2021)
Haleem et al., (“Helium: A Decentralized Wireless Network”, 11/14/2018)
Suthar (US 2019/0379544 A1) discloses a method of provisioning network resources in a wireless network using a native blockchain platform
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights