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 .
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s response on October 5, 2025.
Claims 1-14 have been examined in this application.
No information disclosure statements (IDS) has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are pixelated and blurred, making it difficult to read. 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.
Specification
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification fails to comply with the detailed description of invention requirements set for by 37 CFR 1.71, MPEP 608.01, 2161 and 2162. The detailed description must be in such particularity as to enable any person skilled in the pertinent art or science to make and use the invention without involving extensive experimentation and must clearly convey enough information about the invention to show that applicant invented the subject matter that is claimed. Likewise, the Specification uses various acronyms such as EU without first spelling out the abbreviated acronyms. A review of 37 CFR 1.71, MPEP 608.01, 2161 and 2162 is required in order to amend the Specification appropriately. However, Applicant cannot add new matter into the Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims reference figures and related elements of figures. This is not an appropriate manner of writing claims. Appropriate correction is required. Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” Ex parteFressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted); see MPEP § 608.01(m) for information pertaining to the treatment of reference characters in a claim.
Claims 1-14 are objected to for using abbreviations and acronyms without first spelling out the words or using complete wordings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Specification is devoid of any details on how to actually carry out the claim limitations. The Specification recites similar language to the claims. The Specification provides extremely high level elements on a voting system without actually providing essential details on how to carry out each and every element as claimed. For example, it is not known how the aggregation metrics are carried out, no process is disclosed or details to show step-by-step how it is carried out. There is no detail on the processing of the ballots and weighting of the votes. There is no description of how to tally the results. There is no detail on how the metric aggregator operates, how the voting processor is functioning and how it is different than the one of more processors of the claimed system. There is no disclosure on how the tally module operates, what it is and how it carries out the tally. There is no disclosure on what is an output layer and how it outputs the decisions. The dependent claims are rejected under the same rational and for mere dependence on the rejected claims. The dependent claims fail to provide the support for how to carry out the claimed limitations as recited in the claims.
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 1-14 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-14 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of outputting a voting decision without significantly more.
The abstract idea is categorized mathematical concepts, and mental processes. With regard to mathematical concepts, the claims describe mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations. Aggregating metrics is a clear mathematical operation. Weighting votes also requires all of the above-described concepts of mathematical operations. Processing ballots amounts to yet another operation based on functions/formulas/equations. Tallying is again clearly a formula and without it there is no output of data. Likewise, the abstract idea regarding mental processes is captures by the claims describing concepts that are performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and carrying out said concepts using pen-and-paper. All of the claimed limitations can be done by a human mind and using pen-and-paper. The concept of voting and determining an output of the votes is a basic human brain operation in volving all the above concepts. The technical elements of weighing and tallying and aggregating are all functions that can be done in a human mind and with use of a pen-and-paper.
Claim 2, in pertinent part, recites:
A computer-implemented method for trust-weighted blockchain voting as shown in FIG. 1 with reference 100, comprising:
aggregating metrics;
weighting votes as shown in FIG. 2 with reference 200;
processing ballots as shown in FIG. 3 with reference 300;
tallying results as shown in FIG. 4 with reference 400; and
outputting decisions as shown in FIG. 5 with reference 500.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: Computer-implemented method, one or more processors, memory storing instructions, weighting engine, a voting processor, tally module, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions. The claims seem to recite “blockchain” in the pre-ambles of the independent claims but nowhere in the claim is a blockchain utilized other than the pre-amble. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are as recited above. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, wherein the claims merely amount to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic computers, performing generic computer functions such as populating data, analyzing / manipulating data, and outputting a result. Each of the additional elements / limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or a generic device. The additional elements merely automate the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to merely instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim limitations do not improve another technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (not a generic computer, not adding the words "apply it" or words equivalent to "apply the abstract idea", not mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, generally linking the user of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or adds meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims fail to recite additional elements that would amount to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed above. The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 12,531,741 to Thompson.
Per claims 1-3, Thompson teaches:
A computerized system for trust-weighted blockchain voting as shown in FIG.1 with reference 100, comprising [Abstract, and Col. 6; and claim 1]:
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the system to [Col. 16, Ln. 41-67]:
aggregate metrics via a metric aggregator as shown in FIG. 1 with reference 100 (aggregate voter data) [Col. 90, Ln. 1-17, Col. 92, Ln. 57-67; Figure 20 and related text];
weight votes via a trust weighting engine as shown in FIG. 2 with reference 200 (in determining voter tally, a weight in voting is utilized in association with a voting token) [Col. 82, Ln. 7-22; Col. 107, Ln. 1-37];
process ballots via a voting processor as shown in FIG. 3 with reference 300 (once votes are received they have to be processed) [Col. 106, Ln. 1-36; Col. 112, Ln. 30-65];
tally results via a tally module as shown in FIG. 4 with reference 400 (votes are tallied) [Col. 86, Ln. 13-67; Col. 67, Ln. 32-41; Col. 91, Ln. 1-32; Col. 107, Ln. 1-45] and
output decisions via an output layer as shown in FIG. 5 with reference 500 (Further, block 1672 can include providing 40 access to the certification token for independent auditors and participants (e.g., validators 1150) to verify the election results and audit the integrity of the voting process. In some implementations, block 1670 can include providing the certification to one or more users or an entity responsive to 45 receiving a request via a ledger (e.g., a ledger request).) [Col. 107, Ln. 40-56].
Per claim 4, Thompson teaches wherein metrics include reputation scores, engagement metrics, and alignment metrics from blockchain and external sources, and wherein the metric aggregator includes a privacy filter for GDPR compliance as shown in FIG. 1 with reference 130 [Col. 84, Ln. 45-51].
Per claim 5, Thompson teaches wherein weighting uses verified metrics for vote adjustment and includes a feedback loop for dynamic refinement as shown in FIG. 2 with reference 250 [Col. 84, Ln. 45-51].
Per claim 6, Thompson teaches wherein processing uses decentralized blockchain protocols and includes fraud detection via anomaly algorithms as shown in FIG. 3 with reference 340 [Col. 110, Ln. 15-20].
Per claim 7, Thompson teaches wherein tallying ensures transparency with immutable logs and audit encryption as shown in FIG. 4 with reference 450 [Col. 86, Ln. 13-67; Col. 67, Ln. 32-41; Col. 91, Ln. 1-32; Col. 107, Ln. 1-45].
Per claim 8, Thompson teaches wherein outputs support governance and organizational applications via an integration API as shown in FIG. 5 with reference 530 [Col. 107, Ln. 59-67, and Col. 108, Ln. 1-7].
Per claim 9, Thompson teaches wherein instructions dynamically adapt weighting based on stakeholder metrics and context using machine learning models in the trust scoring component as shown in FIG. 2 with reference 230 [Col. 52, Ln. 23-30; Col. 84, Ln. 45-51; Col. 114, Ln. 50-60].
Per claim 10, Thompson teaches wherein aggregating includes GDPR-compliant data handling with privacy filters and source verification via digital signatures or decentralized identifiers as shown in FIG. 1 with reference 140 [Col. 84, Ln. 45-51].
Per claim 11, Thompson teaches wherein weighting reduces manipulation risks through trust-based adjustments and weight adjustment based on real-time data as shown in FIG.2 with reference 240 [Col. 82, Ln. 7-22; Col. 107, Ln. 1-37; Col. 112, Ln. 40-49, Col. 91, Ln. 13-46].
Per claim 12, Thompson teaches wherein processing applies consensus protocols for vote integrity and cryptographic verification using zero-knowledge proofs as shown in FIG. 3 with reference 350 [Col. 100, Ln. 4-24; Col. 106, Ln. 1-67].
Per claim 13, Thompson teaches wherein tallying incorporates timestamped, immutable records and transparency checking for stakeholder verification as shown in FIG. 4 with reference 420 [Col. 86, Ln. 13-67; Col. 67, Ln. 32-41; Col. 91, Ln. 1-32; Col. 107, Ln. 1-45].
Per claim 14, Thompson teaches wherein outputting delivers encrypted governance decisions via API with secure transmission protocols as shown in FIG. 5 with reference 550 [Col. 107, Ln. 59-67, and Col. 108, Ln. 1-7].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on for PTO-892.
PGPUB 2023/0282052 to Ren et al. (Ren) teaches control system for conducting an election may include a voter client configured to be used by a voter to cast a vote for a candidate, a registrar server, and a moderator server. The moderator server may be configured to obscure the identity of the voter. The registrar server may be configured to randomly assign a ballot to the obscured voter. The registrar server may be configured to encrypt the ballot. The moderator server may be configured to transmit the encrypted ballot to the voter client. The voter client may be configured to decrypt the encrypted ballot to recover the ballot. The voter client, in response to the voter selecting a desired candidate, may be configured to generate a ballot associated with a vote. The voter client may be configured to encrypt the ballot using a public key of the registrar server and a public key of the moderator server. See Figures 8-13 and related text.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EL MEHDI OUSSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-0191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Neha W. Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
Sincerely,
/EL MEHDI OUSSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699