Patent Application 17899747 - Providing and Using an Activity Logging Service - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 17899747 - Providing and Using an Activity Logging Service
Title: Providing and Using an Activity Logging Service
Application Information
- Invention Title: Providing and Using an Activity Logging Service
- Application Number: 17899747
- Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-08-31T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-08-31T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 719
- National Sub-Class: 318000
- Examiner Employee Number: 98872
- Art Unit: 2194
- Tech Center: 2100
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 4
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
- US 0048477🔗
- US 0195544🔗
- US 0222186🔗
- US 0014377🔗
- US 0301921🔗
- US 0324649🔗
- US 0182446🔗
- US 0212932🔗
- US 0034454🔗
Office Action Text
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 . Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references cited in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 3/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The Amendments to the Claims did not overcome the Objections set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 12/05/2024. Accordingly, the Objections to the Claims are presented again in the present Office Action. Claim Objections Claims 1, 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 6 recites “the activity logging service with and a hash ledger storage service” which is grammatically incorrect. The claim should recite “the activity logging service with a hash ledger storage service”. Claim 7, line 3 recites “the activity logging service with and a hash ledger storage service” which is grammatically incorrect. The claim should recite “the activity logging service with a hash ledger storage service”. Claim 14, line 5 recites “the activity logging service with and a hash ledger storage service” which is grammatically incorrect. The claim should recite “the activity logging service with a hash ledger storage service”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-20 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, 7, and 14 recites the limitation "the activity with the user device" in lines 17, 14, and 15-16 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims do not previously recite the observer device observing an “activity with the user device”; however, they previously recite the observer device observes “an event associated with the user device”. For clarity of the record, the Examiner has interpreted “the activity with the user device” to mean “the event associated with the user device”. Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 depend from claims 1, 7, and 14, and inherit the same deficiency. Accordingly, claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected for the same reasons. 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more. Claim 1 recites generating, […] and based on the event data, a block that represents the event, wherein the block comprises first data that represents an identity of the entity, second data that describes the event, and third data that defines a time the observer device observed the activity with the user device, adding, […], the block to the activity log that represents activities associated with the entity, wherein the activity log comprises a previous block, generating, […], a hash of a portion of the activity log, wherein the portion comprises the block and the previous block, and […] appends the hash of the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity all of which can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply the exception (A system comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising […] by the manager device, […] wherein the hash ledger storage service…) and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of registering, by an activity logging service hosted on a manager device, the activity logging service with and a hash ledger storage service hosted by a server computer, wherein the hash ledger storage service is configured to store a hash ledger that represents an activity log for a user device associated with an entity, registering, by the manager device, an observer device with the activity logging service, wherein the observer device is configured to provide event data to the activity logging service, wherein the event data describes an event associated with the user device, and wherein the event is observed by the observer device, obtaining, by the manager device and from the observer device, the event data, all of which, when considered individually or in combination, amount insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. Claim 1 also recites the additional element of sending, by the manager device and to the server computer via a network connection, the hash to the hash ledger storage service wherein the hash ledger storage service appends the hash of the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (specifically updating an activity log – see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and is also well-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data. These additional elements of mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 2 recites the additional element of initiating event logging via an interaction with the user device associated with the entity, wherein the interaction occurs via a portal provided by the activity logging service, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 3 further recites wherein the portion of the activity log further comprises metadata that defines the time and a location associated with the block. Since the step of “generating […] a hash of a portion of the activity log, wherein the portion of the activity log comprises the block and the previous block and further comprises metadata that defined the time and a location associated with the block” can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, this additional limitation specifying data on which to generate a hash is still reciting a mental process. The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1 and 3 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exceptions and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements; therefore, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The additional elements recited in claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, claim 3 is not eligible. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 4 further recites wherein the portion of the activity log further comprises metadata that defines the time and a location associated with the block and further metadata that relates to a further time and further location associated with the previous block. Since the step of “generating a hash of a portion of the activity log, wherein the portion of the activity log comprises the block and a previous block and further comprises metadata that defines the time and a location associated with the block and further metadata that relates to a further time and further location associated with the previous block” can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, this additional limitation specifying data on which to generate a hash is still reciting a mental process. The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1 and 4 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exceptions and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 4 does not recite any further additional elements; therefore, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The additional elements recited in claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, claim 4 is not eligible. Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 5 recites the additional element of wherein the event data identifies a location at which the event occurred, which is merely describing the data to be obtained from the observer device as recited in claim 1, and therefore is still insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 6 recites the additional element of wherein the activity log comprises a circular buffer that represents events over a sliding window of time, and wherein an oldest block is removed from the activity log when a block time associated with the oldest block is no longer encompassed by the sliding window of time, which is generally linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. This additional element of generally linking the judicial exception to a technological environment is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more. Claim 7 recites generating, […] and based on the event data, a block that represents the event wherein the block comprises first data that represents an identity of the entity, second data that describes the event, and third data that defines a time the observer device observed the activity with the user device; adding, […], the block to the activity log that represents activities associated with the entity, wherein the activity log comprises a previous block; generating, […], a hash of a portion of the activity log, wherein the portion comprises the block and the previous block; and […] appends the hash of the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity, all of which can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply the exception (by a computing device comprising a processor, […] by the manager device […] wherein the hash ledger storage service) and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 7 recites the additional elements of registering, by a manager device comprising a processor that executes an activity logging service, the activity logging service with and a hash ledger storage service hosted by a server computer, wherein the hash ledger storage service is configured to store a hash ledger that represents an activity log for a user device associated with an entity; registering, by the manager device, an observer device with the activity logging service, wherein the observer device is configured to provide event data to the activity logging service, wherein the event data describes an event associated with the user device, and wherein the event is observed by the observer device; obtaining, by the manager device and from the observer device, the event data all of which, when considered individually or in combination, amount insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. Claim 7 also recites the additional element of sending, by the manager device and to the server computer via a network connection, the hash to the hash ledger storage service wherein the hash ledger storage service appends the hash of the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (specifically updating an activity log – see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and is also well-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data. These additional elements of mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 7 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 8 recites the additional element of initiating event logging via an interaction with the user device, wherein the interaction occurs via a portal provided by the activity logging service, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 7, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 7 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 9 recites the additional element of wherein the event data identifies a location at which the event occurred, which is merely describing the data to be obtained from the observer device as recited in claim 7, and therefore is still insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 7, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 10 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 7 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 10 recites the additional element of obtaining, from the user device, settings that specify events to log using the activity logging service, wherein the settings are obtained via a user interface presented at the user device, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 7, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 11 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 7 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 11 recites the additional element of wherein the observer device comprises a camera, and wherein the event comprises a change in state associated with the entity, which is merely specifying a device used to gather data and specifying the data to be gathered, and is therefore still considered insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 7, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 7 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 12 recites the additional element of wherein the event comprises a movement of the entity in proximity to the observer device, which is merely specifying the data to be gathered, and is therefore still considered insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 7, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 7 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the judicial exception to technological environment. Claim 13 recites the additional element of wherein the hash ledger comprises a blockchain data structure that represents the activity log, which is generally linking the judicial exception to technological environment. This additional element of generally linking the judicial exception to technological environment is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 7, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more. Claim 14 recites generating, […] and based on the event data, a block that represents the event, wherein the block comprises first data that represents an identity of the entity, second data that describes the event, and third data that defines a time the observer device observed the activity with the user device; adding the block to the activity log that represents activities associated with the entity, wherein the activity log comprises a previous block; generating a hash of a portion of the activity log, wherein the portion comprises the block and the previous block; and […] appends the hash of the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity all of which can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply the exception (A computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: […] by the manager device […] wherein the hash ledger storage service…) and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 14 recites the additional elements of registering, by an activity logging service hosted on a manager device, the activity logging service with and a hash ledger storage service hosted by a server computer, wherein the hash ledger storage service is configured to store a hash ledger that represents an activity log for a user device associated with an entity; registering, by the manager device, an observer device with the activity logging service, wherein the observer device is configured to provide event data to the activity logging service, wherein the event data describes an event associated with the user device, and wherein the event is observed by the observer device; obtaining, by the manager device and from the observer device, the event data, all of which, when considered individually or in combination, are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. Claim 14 also recites the additional element of sending, via a network connection between the manager device and the server computer, the hash to the hash ledger storage service wherein the hash ledger storage service appends the hash of the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (specifically updating an activity log – see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and is also well-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data. These additional elements of mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 15 is dependent on claim 14, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 14. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 14 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 15 recites the additional element of initiating event logging via an interaction with the user device, wherein the interaction occurs via a portal provided by the activity logging service, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 14, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 16 is dependent on claim 14, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 14. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 14 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 16 recites the additional element of wherein the event data identifies a location at which the event occurred, which is merely describing the data to be obtained from the observer device as recited in claim 14, and therefore is still insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 14, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 17 is dependent on claim 14, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 14. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 14 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 17 recites the additional element of obtaining, from the user device, settings that specify events to log using the activity logging service, wherein the settings are obtained via a user interface presented at the user device, which is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 14, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 18 is dependent on claim 14, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 14. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 14 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 18 recites the additional element of wherein the observer device comprises a camera, and wherein the event comprises a change in state associated with the entity, which is merely specifying a device used to gather data and specifying the data to be gathered, and is therefore still considered insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 14, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 19 is dependent on claim 14, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 14. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 14 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 19 recites the additional element of wherein the event comprises a movement of the entity in proximity to the observer device, which is merely specifying the data to be gathered, and is therefore still considered insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. This additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 14, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Claim 20 is dependent on claim 14, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 14. The judicial exceptions recited in claim 14 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited comprise only mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the judicial exception to technological environment. Claim 20 recites the additional element of wherein the hash ledger comprises a blockchain data structure that represents the activity log, which is generally linking the judicial exception to technological environment. This additional element of generally linking the judicial exception to technological environment is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 14, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception; thus, the claim is not eligible. Regarding the “computer storage medium” of claims 14-20, the Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0096] of the specification of the instant application, which recites “Computer storage media includes only non-transitory embodiments of computer readable media as illustrated and described herein. [….] In the claims, the phrase "computer storage medium" and variations thereof does not include waves or signals per se and/or communication media.” Thus, in view of paragraph [0096], the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 14-20 does not include transitory embodiments of computer storage media, such as signals per se. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0034454), hereinafter Chamarajnager, in view of Vasudevan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0014377), hereinafter Vasudevan, and Sittisombut et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0182446), hereinafter Sittisombut. Regarding claim 1, Chamarajnager teaches a system comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations ([0100]-[0101] – “The IoT devices 113, gateways 111, client devices 109, and devices including the management system 106 can include at least one processor circuit, for example, having a processor and at least one memory device, both of which couple to a local interface, respectively. […] A number of software components are stored in the memory and executable by a processor.”) comprising registering, by an activity logging service hosted on a manager device ([0019]-[0020] – “The management system 106 can include a server computer or any other system providing computing capability. […] The components executed on the management system 106 can include a management service 120”), the activity logging service with and a hash ledger storage service hosted by a server computer ([0032]-[0033] – “The blockchain system 107 can include a server computer or any other system providing computing capability. […] The components executed on the blockchain system 107 can include a blockchain service 140”, wherein the hash ledger storage service is configured to store a hash ledger that represents an activity log for a user device associated with an entity (FIG. 2, step 203; [0055] – “management services 120 can be registered with the blockchain service 140. In some cases, registration can include uploading or otherwise transmitting, to the blockchain service 140, a management certificate uniquely associated with an enterprise or the management service 120.”; [0084] – “the management service 120 can record an IoT event block to the blockchain data 148. […] The blockchain service 140 can require the management service 120 to authenticate with the blockchain service 140 establish permission to write to the blockchain data 148. […] The management certificate can be uniquely associated with a particular enterprise. In addition, the blockchain service 140 can store a table or other data that relates a particular management service 120 with a particular set of blockchains in the blockchain data 148. A particular management certificate can also be related with the particular management service 120 in the data. Blockchain service 140 can permit access to the particular set of blockchains based on the management certificate.”; [0085] – “The management services 120 can also be associated with a particular asset 155 or group of assets 115. The asset 115 can correspond to a blockchain in the blockchain data 148.”; [0030] – “Each asset 115 can be associated with an IoT device 113 or multiple IoT devices 113.”; [0082] – “The event data 170 can include an entity responsible for the asset 115. The entity can be an enterprise or an individual, internal division, department, or group within the enterprise.”[0013] – “The blockchain can be hosted by a blockchain service in a plurality of nodes external to a plurality of management services includes the management service. In other cases, the blockchain can be hosted in a plurality of nodes corresponding to a plurality of management services, which can include the management service.” Blockchain system 107 comprises blockchain service 140 (“hash ledger storage service”) with which management service 120 (“activity logging service”) registers. Blockchain service 140 requires the management service 120 to authenticate with the blockchain service 140 before event (“activity”) data can be written (stored/logged) in the blockchain data 148 (“ledger”) for an asset associated with a particular entity. Since a blockchain (“ledger”) is associated with an asset (“entity”) and an asset is associated with an IoT device, such as a phone (a “user device”) comprising one or more sensors as stated in [0050], the blockchain can be considered to be associated with the IoT device as well. Thus, the blockchain may be considered an event log (“activity log”) for the IoT device associated with a particular asset.), registering, by the manager device, an observer device with the activity logging service, wherein the observer device is configured to provide event data to the activity logging service, and wherein the event data describes an event associated with the user device, and wherein the event is observed by the observer device (FIG. 2, step 206; [0050] – “The IoT device 113 can be representative of one or more IoT devices 113. The IoT device 113 can include a single sensor or multiple sensors. The IoT device 113 can include appliances, vehicles, sensors, controllers, actuators, monitors, phones, tablets, thermostats, speakers, printers, locks, and other devices and can incorporate processor-based systems that can include a processor, network communication hardware, and a memory including executable instructions, such as a computer system or any other device with like capability.” The IoT device, such as a phone (a “user device”), associated with an asset may comprise multiple IoT devices, such as sensors. [0056] – “gateways 111 and IoT devices 113 can be registered and enrolled with the management service 120.”; [0057] – “An IoT device 113 can be registered with the management service 120 by uploading, transmitting, or otherwise providing an IoT device identifier to the management service 120.”; [0060] – “The gateway 111 can establish trust with the IoT device 113 by checking that the IoT device identifier or other credentials […] is in a table, list, or database of enrolled and trusted IoT devices 113 to allow the IoT device 113 to provide sensor data 169 to the gateway 111 or to the management service 120, through the gateway 111.”; Sensor data from the registered IoT devices (“observer devices”) is provided to the management service (“activity logging service”) through the gateway (which may also be considered an “observer device” based off the limitations of the claims). [0030] – “A type of an IoT device 113 can correspond to a type of asset 115. Each asset 115 can be associated with an IoT device 113 or multiple IoT devices 113.”; [0066] – “the sensor data 169 can indicate that a sensor of an IoT device 113 has triggered an IoT event based on the IoT event definitions 128. For example, the sensor data 169 can indicate a sensor value that is beyond a threshold value, or sensor values that are beyond a threshold value for a threshold period of time. The gateway 111 can determine that an IoT device 113 has triggered an IoT event. If an IoT device 113 or IoT devices 113 have triggered an IoT event, the gateway 111 can generate IoT event data 170. The event data 170 can include the sensor data 169, as well as a name or identity of the IoT event that is triggered. The event data 170 can also include an entity responsible for the asset 115. The entity can be an enterprise or an individual, internal division, department, or group within the enterprise. The gateway 111 can determine the entity responsible for the asset 115, for example, based on metadata for the asset 115 stored by the gateway 111 or the management service 120.”; [0070] – “the gateway 111 can transmit the event data 170 to the management service 120”; [0092]-[0093] – “The sensor data 169 can include data from one or more sensors of an IoT device 113. […] The sensor data 169 can indicate that a sensor of an IoT device 113 has triggered an IoT event based on the IoT event definitions 128. For example, the sensor data 169 can indicate a sensor value that is beyond a threshold value, or sensor values that are beyond a threshold value for a threshold period of time. If an IoT device 113 or IoT devices 113 have triggered an IoT event, the gateway 111 can generate IoT event data 170.” Sensor data indicating an event, such as a sensor value being beyond a threshold, has been sensed (“observed”) by a sensor (“observer device”) of the IoT device (“user device”). Since a sensor can also be considered an IoT device, registering an IoT device with the management service as described in [0056] and [0057] could be considered registering a sensor (an “observer device”) of another IoT device, such as phone (a “user device”), and the event observed by the sensor would be considered an event associated with the user device comprising the sensor.), obtaining, by the manager device and from the observer device, the event data ([0060] – “The gateway 111 can establish trust with the IoT device 113 by checking that the IoT device identifier or other credentials […] is in a table, list, or database of enrolled and trusted IoT devices 113 to allow the IoT device 113 to provide sensor data 169 to the gateway 111 or to the management service 120, through the gateway 111.”; [0070] – “In step 218, the gateway 111 can transmit the event data 170 to the management service 120. For example, the gateway 111 can generate a request to record the event data 170 in a blockchain. The request can include the sensor data 169 and other event data 170. The gateway 111 can transmit the request to the management service 120.” Sensor data (included in the “event data”) from the IoT devices (“observer devices”) is transmitted to the management service via the gateway.), generating, by the manager device and based on the event data, a block that represents the event ([0071] – “The management service 120 can generate an IoT event block based on the event data 170. The IoT event block can be an encrypted block that describes the IoT event and includes the IoT event data 170.”), wherein the block comprises first data that represents an identity of the entity ([0066] – “the sensor data 169 can indicate that a sensor of an IoT device 113 has triggered an IoT event […] If an IoT device 113 or IoT devices 113 have triggered an IoT event, the gateway 111 can generate IoT event data 170. The event data 170 can include the sensor data 169, as well as a name or identity of the IoT event that is triggered. The event data 170 can also include an entity responsible for the asset 115. The entity can be an enterprise or an individual, internal division, department, or group within the enterprise."), second data that describes the event ([0015] - "A block for the blockchain can be generated. The block can include a description of the loT event. The description can include the sensor data."), and third data that defines a time the observer device observed the activity with the user device ([0011] - "Events can also be dependent upon time, location, or other factors that can be measured by loT device sensors."; [0066] – “The event data 170 can include the sensor data 169”; [0052] – “The sensor data 169 can include any of the metrics tracked by the loT devices 113, including temperature, moisture, radiation, impact force, location, velocity, azimuthal angle, elevation angle, barometric pressure, time, date, biometric scans, and other data that is gathered, generated, tracked, or reported by the loT devices 113.”), adding, by the manager device, the block to the activity log ([0071] – “the management service 120 can record an IoT event block to the blockchain data 148. […] The management service 120 can update a blockchain in the blockchain data 148 to include the IoT event block.”) that represents activities associated with the entity ([0030] – “IoT event definitions 128 can include rules that indicate when event data 170 should be written to the blockchain data 148. The IoT event definitions 128 can specify IoT events for a particular asset 115 or type of asset 115, as well as for a particular IoT device 113 or type of loT device. A type of an IoT device 113 can correspond to a type of asset 115. Each asset 115 can be associated with an IoT device 113 or multiple IoT devices 113.”; [0085] – “The asset 115 can correspond to a blockchain in the blockchain data 148.”; [0082] – “The event data 170 can include an entity responsible for the asset 115. The entity can be an enterprise or an individual, internal division, department, or group within the enterprise.” The blockchain for an asset with an associated entity stores blocks representing IoT events (“activities”) associated with the asset, and transitively associated with the entity responsible for the asset.), wherein the activity log comprises a previous block ([0054] – “Generally, this process enables the components of the networked environment 100 to record and maintain IoT events in a blockchain record stored by a blockchain service 140.”; [0009] – “Blockchain can refer to a distributed database or ledger of data that includes records that can be referred to as blocks. Each time the database or ledger is updated or changed, the update or change is recorded in an encrypted block and added to the blockchain. Each block is preserved in the blockchain so that it cannot be altered or edited”; [0073] – “In step 227, the management service 120 can generate a summary of IoT events based on the IoT events recorded in a database or ledger of the blockchain data 148. For example, the user interface can identify a number of loT events since a last visit, a number of IoT events in a particular time period, a number of loT events per asset, and a number of IoT events per responsible entity.” Since Chamarajnager teaches recording and maintaining/preserving multiple blocks (emphasis on the plurality) in the blockchain data, for every block added to the blockchain after the first, the blockchain data 148 (“activity log”) comprises a “previous block”.), sending, by the manager device and to the server computer via a network connection, the ([0017] – “The networked environment 100 can include a management system 106, a blockchain system 107 client device 109, a gateway 111, Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices 113, and other components in communication with one another over a network 112.”; [0055] – “The blockchain service 140 can permit management services 120 to write blocks to blockchains in the blockchain data 148 based on authentication using the management certificate.”; [0071] – “the management service 120 can record an IoT event block to the blockchain data 148. […] The management service 120 can update a blockchain in the blockchain data 148 to include the IoT event block.” With the approval of the blockchain service 140 (“hash ledger storage service”), the management services 120 on management system 106 (“manager device”) can write (“send”) a block to the blockchain stored at blockchain system 107 (“server computer” comprising the “hash ledger storage service”).), Chamarajnager fails to teach generating a hash of a portion of the activity log, wherein the portion comprises the block and the previous block, and sending the hash to the hash ledger storage service, wherein the hash ledger storage service appends the hash of the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity. However, Vasudevan teaches generating, by the manager device, a hash of a portion of the activity log, wherein the portion comprises the block ([0023] – “The blockchain manager 118 generates a unique hash for the new block and adds the generated hash to the block.” A hash is generated for a block (i.e., corresponding to “portion of the activity log” as disclosed by Chamarajnager).) […], and wherein a blockchain manager appends the hash to the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity ([0021]-[0023] – “Once the new block is verified by other computing nodes of the blockchain infrastructure 130 as described above, the blockchain manager 118 adds the new block to the blockchain 132 and updates the copy of blockchain 132 stored in the ledger 124 to reflect the new block.” The block (including the generated hash) is added (“appended”) to the blockchain (“hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity”).). Chamarajnager and Vasudevan are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing an activity log with a blockchain ledger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blockchain ledger and corresponding services that manage and update the ledger taught by Chamarajnager to use the hashing techniques taught by Vasudevan. Using the hashing techniques in a blockchain ledger as taught by Vasudevan allows transactions to be recorded in a verifiable and permanent way which is resistant to modification (Vasudevan: [0019]). Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan fails to expressly teach the portion comprises the block and the previous block. However, Sittisombut teaches wherein the portion comprises the block and the previous block ([0016] – “A blockchain ledger may comprise a “chain” of blockchain entries 116. Each blockchain entry 116 may include a block of data 118 storing identifying data for a transaction, file, or other record, […] The underlying data for each blockchain entry may be put through a hashing algorithm, encrypted, or otherwise secured or made uniquely identifiable while prohibiting unauthorized access or tampering. […] The hashing or encryption of a current block may include incorporating data from the previous blockchain entry in the distributed ledger, which previous data may also be put through the hashing or encryption algorithm along with the new data for the current entry.” Hashing is done on data for a current entry (the “block” corresponding to an event) and a data from a previous entry (a “previous block” corresponding to a previous event).). Sittisombut is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of maintaining a block ledger comprising hashes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the block ledger taught by Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan such that the hash is generated for a portion of the activity log comprising the block and the previous block as taught by Sittisombut. Incorporating data from previous blocks in the hashing algorithm makes the blockchain ledger tamper resistant (Sittisombut: [0016]). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut teaches the system of claim 1. Chamarajnager further teaches wherein the portion of the activity log further comprises (As recited in claim 1, the “portion comprises the block and the previous block”. Thus, since Chamarajnager teaches each generated block includes event data 170 (see [0072]), which includes sensor data 169 (see [0066]) for a triggered event represented by the block comprising a time and location recorded by the sensor (see [0052]), the “portion of the activity log” also comprises this data.). Chamarajnager fails to expressly teach the time and location associated with the block is metadata. However, Sittisombut teaches metadata that defines a time and location associated with the block ([0020] – “The DSD 104 may transmit a request to generate a blockchain entry 116 corresponding to a file 114 to the distributed blockchain ledger 108, for example by transmitting the information related to the file 114 over network 102 to a blockchain node 112. […] For example, the information provided by the DSD 104 may include metadata about where or when the file was created or stored, a file size, file type, and other information about the file.”; Claim 11 – “send the metadata to the blockchain node for incorporation into the blockchain block.” The blockchain entry (a “block”) may include metadata such as where or when the event represented by the block (e.g., file creation, file storage) occurred.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the block ledger taught by Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan such that the blocks in the portion of the activity log for which a hash is generated may include metadata as taught by Sittisombut. The methods disclosed by Sittisombut including performing hashing on multiple blocks and their metadata makes the blockchain ledger secure and tamper resistant (Sittisombut: [0016]). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut teaches the system of claim 1. Chamarajnager further teaches wherein the portion of the activity log further comprises (As recited in claim 1, the “portion comprises the block and the previous block”. Thus, since Chamarajnager teaches each generated block includes event data 170 (see [0072]), which includes sensor data 169 (see [0066]) for a triggered event represented by the block comprising a time and location recorded by the sensor (see [0052]), the “portion of the activity log” also comprises this date for the block and the previous block.). Chamarajnager fails to expressly teach the time and location associated with each block is metadata. However, Sittisombut teaches metadata that defines a time and location associated with the block ([0020] – “The DSD 104 may transmit a request to generate a blockchain entry 116 corresponding to a file 114 to the distributed blockchain ledger 108, for example by transmitting the information related to the file 114 over network 102 to a blockchain node 112. […] For example, the information provided by the DSD 104 may include metadata about where or when the file was created or stored, a file size, file type, and other information about the file.”; Claim 11 – “send the metadata to the blockchain node for incorporation into the blockchain block.” The blockchain entry (a “block”) may include metadata such as where or when the event represented by the block (e.g., file creation, file storage) occurred. [0016] – “A blockchain ledger may comprise a “chain” of blockchain entries 116. Each blockchain entry 116 may include a block of data 118 storing identifying data for a transaction, file, or other record, […] The underlying data for each blockchain entry may be put through a hashing algorithm, encrypted, or otherwise secured or made uniquely identifiable while prohibiting unauthorized access or tampering. […] The hashing or encryption of a current block may include incorporating data from the previous blockchain entry in the distributed ledger, which previous data may also be put through the hashing or encryption algorithm along with the new data for the current entry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the block ledger taught by Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan such that the blocks in the portion of the activity log for which a hash is generated may include metadata as taught by Sittisombut. The methods disclosed by Sittisombut including performing hashing on multiple blocks and their metadata makes the blockchain ledger secure and tamper resistant (Sittisombut: [0016]). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the event data identifies a location at which the event occurred (Chamarajnager: [0011] – “Events can also be dependent upon time, location, or other factors that can be measured by IoT device sensors.”; [0052] – “The sensor data 169 can include any of the metrics tracked by the IoT devices 113, including temperature, moisture, radiation, impact force, location, velocity, azimuthal angle, elevation angle, barometric pressure, time, date, biometric scans, and other data that is gathered, generated, tracked, or reported by the IoT devices 113.” Sensor data for a triggered event includes location the data is recorded. [0060] – “the IoT device 113 to provide sensor data 169 to the gateway 111 or to the management service 120, through the gateway 111.”; [0066] – “If an IoT device 113 or IoT devices 113 have triggered an IoT event, the gateway 111 can generate IoT event data 170. The event data 170 can include the sensor data 169, as well as a name or identity of the IoT event that is triggered.”; [0070] – “In step 218, the gateway 111 can transmit the event data 170 to the management service 120. For example, the gateway 111 can generate a request to record the event data 170 in a blockchain. The request can include the sensor data 169 and other event data 170. The gateway 111 can transmit the request to the management service 120.”). Claim 7 is directed to a method comprising: the operations performed by the processor of the system of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1. Claim 9 is directed to a method comprising the operations performed by the processor of the system of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 5. Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the hash ledger comprises a blockchain data structure that represents the activity log (Chamarajnager: [0071] – “the management service 120 can record an IoT event block to the blockchain data 148. […] The management service 120 can update a blockchain in the blockchain data 148 to include the IoT event block.”). Claim 14 is directed to a computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (Chamarajnager: [0107] – “Also, any logic or application described herein that includes software or code can be embodied in any non-transitory computer-readable medium for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system such as a processor in a computer system or other system.”): the operations performed by the processor of the system of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1. Claim 16 is directed to a computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising the operations performed by the processor of the system of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 5. Claim 20 is directed to a computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising the method of claim 13. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 13. Claims 2, 8, 11-12, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut as applied to claims 1, 7 and 14 above, and further in view of DORRIS, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0048477), hereinafter DORRIS. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations but fails to teach the operations further comprising: initiating event logging via an interaction with the user device associated with the entity, wherein the interaction occurs via a portal provided by the activity logging service. However, DORRIS teaches initiating event logging via an interaction with the user device associated with the entity, wherein the interaction occurs via a portal provided by the activity logging service ([0063] – “Website server 202b may be configured to operate a website that enables a user to activate a quest”; [0071] – “a user may activate the quest on a user device connecting to a website server.”; [0102] – “Graphical user interface 400 may be enabled by a quest management server or supporting server, and accessible to a user by using a computing apparatus with a browser”; [0104] – “a user may activate a quest in a number of ways. […] The activation process may be initiated by clicking on an unlock icon in graphical user interface 400”; [0127] and [0136] – “As each required activity is completed by a user, it may be logged for that user with respect to the quest that they activated.”; [0061] – data integration server (providing an “activity logging service”), quest management server, and website server may be the same even though they are described as separate. In short, a user “initiates” event logging for a particular quest by activating the quest. A user may activate a quest for which user activities (“events”) are logged through a GUI (i.e., a “portal”) on a user device.). DORRIS is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using an activity logging service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut to include initiating event logging via a portal provided by the activity logging service as taught by DORRIS. Doing so allows a user to track activities completed over time corresponding to a particular quest across a plurality of locations and using many different reporting devices (DORRIS: [0005] and [0050]-[0051]). Claim 8 is directed to a method comprising the operations performed by the processor of the system of claim 2; accordingly, claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut as applied to claim 7, and further in view of DORRIS for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 2. Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut teaches the method of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the observer device comprises a camera, and wherein the event comprises a change in state associated with the entity. However, DORRIS teaches wherein the observer device comprises a camera ([0082] – “Each reporting device may include, for example a monitor, a detector, a reader, a scanner, a sensor, a GPS chip, an indoor navigation device, a Bluetooth beacon, a server, a point of sales (POS) terminal, a device working with key fobs, a bar code reader, a magnetic card reader, a contactless chip detector, a biometric reader, a camera, a geo-location detector, and/or a beacon reader. Further examples of reporting devices include smartphones, laptops, wearable devices, tablets, and/or any personal electronic device.”), and wherein the event comprises a change in state associated with the entity ([0123] – “each reporting device may generate activity tracking data associated with the user in response to the user performing an activity associated with the quest. Activity tracking data may include, for example, the activity the user performs or completes, the location where the activity was performed, the date and/or time when the activity was performed, and/or the result of the activity. For example, activity tracking data may include data indicating that the user played one or more games on a casino's EGM in Curacao on a specific data/time. The activity tracking data may also include the outcome of the game played on the EGM ( e.g., win, loss, winning score or level achieved, and so on). In this example, the data reporting device is the EGM on which the user played the game. As will be appreciated from this disclosure, these are just examples and other activity tracking data and data reporting devices may be utilized depending on the activity that is performed (e.g., a transaction at a POS terminal, staying at a hotel, attending a show at a theatre, etc.).”; [0043] – “An "activity," as used herein, refers to a define user action or behavior. An activity may be performed virtually or online (e.g., via a website or a mobile application). An activity may be performed at one or more physical locations.” Performing an action or behavior can be considered to be a “change in state” associated with the “entity” (user). For clarity of the record, the Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0058] of the specification of the instant application which recites “by detecting a change in state (e.g., sitting to standing, walking to stopping, sleeping to waking, or the like)”. Thus, an activity (i.e., “event”) comprising a user action or behavior as described by DORRIS may reasonably be considered a “change in state”.). DORRIS is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using an activity logging service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan to include a camera capable of detecting a change of state associated with an entity as one of the observer devices from which event data is obtained as taught by DORRIS. The methods of DORRIS allows for the tracking of user activities completed over time corresponding to a quest across a plurality of locations and using many different reporting devices (DORRIS: [0005] and [0050]-[0051]). Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut teaches the method of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the event comprises a movement of the entity in proximity to the observer device. However, DORRIS teaches wherein the event comprises a movement of the entity in proximity to the observer device ([0043] – “An "activity," as used herein, refers to a define user action or behavior. An activity may be performed virtually or online (e.g., via a website or a mobile application). An activity may be performed at one or more physical locations.”; [0123] – “For example, activity tracking data may include data indicating that the user played one or more games on a casino's EGM in Curacao on a specific data/time. The activity tracking data may also include the outcome of the game played on the EGM ( e.g., win, loss, winning score or level achieved, and so on). In this example, the data reporting device is the EGM on which the user played the game. As will be appreciated from this disclosure, these are just examples and other activity tracking data and data reporting devices may be utilized depending on the activity that is performed (e.g., a transaction at a POS terminal, staying at a hotel, attending a show at a theatre, etc.).” Examples of a user activity or “event” detected by a reporting device for which data is sent to the data integration server (i.e., “activity logging service”) include a user playing a game on the reporting device. Playing a game on the reporting device would comprise a movement by the user (“entity”) in proximity to the reporting (“observer”) device as claimed.). DORRIS is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of using an activity logging service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan such that an event for which data is obtained from an observer device comprises a movement of the entity in proximity to the user device as taught by DORRIS. The methods of DORRIS allows for the tracking of user activities completed over time corresponding to a quest across a plurality of locations and using many different reporting devices (DORRIS: [0005] and [0050]-[0051]). Claim 15 is directed to a computer storage medium have computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising the operations performed by the processor of the system of claim 2; accordingly, claim 15 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut as applied to claim 14, and further in view of DORRIS for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 2. Claim 18 is directed to a computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising the method of claim 11. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut as applied to claim 14, and further in view of DORRIS for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 11. Claim 19 is directed to a computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising the method of claim 12. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut as applied to claim 14, and further in view of DORRIS for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cozianu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0222186), hereinafter Cozianu. Regarding claim 6, Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the activity log comprises a circular buffer that represents events over a sliding window of time, and wherein an oldest block is removed from the activity log when a block time associated with the oldest block is no longer encompassed by the sliding window of time. However, Cozianu teaches wherein the activity log comprises a circular buffer that represents events over a sliding window of time, and wherein an oldest block is removed from the activity log when a block time associated with the oldest block is no longer encompassed by the sliding window of time ([0028] – “the status data associated with the document processing device is stored in the circular storage buffers of the data storage device 104 for a predefined interval. Upon occurrence of such an interval, selected status data is deleted.”; [0057] – “status data is capable of including, for example and without limitation, software events, processor failure, system restarts, process failure, toner levels, paper levels, processing usage, resource levels, power consumption, operation utilizations, mechanical component wear, and the like”; [0058] – “When the predefined interval has been completed, the storage pointer is reset, i.e., the pointer is reset to reflect the first storage location, whereby newly received status data is written over the oldest received status data. In effect, as will be understood by those skilled in the art, the oldest previously received status data is deleted.”; [0071] – “the detailed logging information is stored in several circular buffers in memory, such as the data storage device 110 or system memory of the document processing device 104, whereupon it is overwritten, i.e., lost or erased, after predefined interval. It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the predefined interval is capable of including, for example and without limitation, a predetermined a period of time, buffer storage capacity, memory usage, number of entries associated with stored data, a specified purge time, or the like.”). Cozianu is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of providing an activity log. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the activity log taught by Chamarajnager to be a circular buffer which removes blocks from the log after a period of time. Doing so enables handling of large amounts of frequently generated data which are only needed in the event of a problem, and is conventional practice in logging the usage data of document processing devices (Cozianu: [0003]); further, these logging practices can be applicable to other fields involving status logs (Cozianu: [0023]). Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut as applied to claims 7 and 14 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0301921), hereinafter Kumar. Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut teaches the method of claim 7, but fails to teach the method further comprising obtaining, from the user device, settings that specify events to log using the activity logging service, wherein the settings are obtained via a user interface presented at the user device. However, Kumar teaches obtaining, from the user device, settings that specify events to log using the activity logging service via a user interface presented at the user device ([0028] – “A user interface may be provided to the user to select events that are to be logged by the monitor. Similarly, an Application Programming Interface (API) may be provided to process the events that are to be logged by the monitor. Since users may be interested in events that are not defined by the present disclosure, users may define events that are to be logged, and thus the present disclosure provides a mechanism for defining such events, which can then be selected via the user interface or API.”; [0044]-[0045] – “The user device 204 may include, but is not limited to, a desktop computer, a portable computer, a mobile phone, a handheld device, and a workstation. […] the user devices 204 are communicatively coupled to the event logging system 202 over a network 206 through one or more communication links for facilitating one or more end users to access and operate the event logging system 202.”). Kumar is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of providing and using an activity logging service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the IoT device, such a phone or other computer system (see Chamarajnager: [0050]), which includes sensors to collect data about events, taught by Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut to obtain settings that specify events to log via a user interface of the device as taught by Kumar. Providing a user interface through which a user can specify events to log allows a user to define and select events of interest (Kumar: [0028]). Claim 17 is directed to a computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising the method of claim 10. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected as being unpatentable over Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Kumar for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 10. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, see pages 9-13 of the Remarks filed 3/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. Examiner disagrees. Step 2A of the Eligibility Analysis (see MPEP 2106.04) determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. Step 2A, Prong One asks “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”. The Examiner has identified the following steps: generating, […] and based on the event data, a block that represents the event, wherein the block comprises first data that represents an identity of the entity, second data that describes the event, and third data that defines a time the observer device observed the activity with the user device, adding, […], the block to the activity log that represents activities associated with the entity, wherein the activity log comprises a previous block, generating, […], a hash of a portion of the activity log, wherein the portion comprises the block and the previous block, and […] appends the hash of the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity. These identified steps can be performed by a person, with the aid of pen and paper, and thus are reciting a mental process, which falls into the category of an abstract idea, and is a judicial exception. Step 2A, Prong B asks “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”. The additional elements by the manager device and sending, via a network connection between the manager device and the server computer, the hash to the hash ledger storage service, wherein the hash ledger storage service which can be inserted into the ellipses above, merely recite generic computers and computing components performing ordinary computing tasks, and are considered to be mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer. The additional element A system comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising is also reciting mere instructions to implement the operations comprising mental processes on a computer. The additional elements of registering, by an activity logging service hosted on a manager device, the activity logging service with and a hash ledger storage service hosted by a server computer, wherein the hash ledger storage service is configured to store a hash ledger that represents an activity log for a user device associated with an entity, registering, by the manager device, an observer device with the activity logging service, wherein the observer device is configured to provide event data to the activity logging service, wherein the event data describes an event associated with the user device, and wherein the event is observed by the observer device, when considered alone or in combination, are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, as they are merely gathering information about the devices involved in obtaining event data needed to performed the identified judicial exceptions and the devices which store the result of the judicial exceptions. At best, these can also be considered mere instructions to apply the exception with a computer, as they amount to computers performing known computing tasks, such as registering various devices or services with other services (see at least Chamarajnager). The additional element of obtaining, by the manager device and from the observer device, the event data is insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering, as it is gathering event data needed to generate the block. Lastly, the additional element of sending, via a network connection between the manager device and the server computer, the hash to the hash ledger storage service, wherein the hash ledger storage service appends the hash of the portion of the activity log to the hash ledger that represents the activity log for the entity is insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (“updating an activity log” – see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, this step is well-known routine and convention activity of transmitting data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Thus, these additional elements are reciting 1) mere instructions to implement the judicial exceptions on a computer and 2) insignificant extra-solution activity, which the courts have identified to not be indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). Even when considered as a whole, the claims amount to configuring a computing environment to gather and store data, performing operations which can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper on the gathered data, and storing the result of the operations. Thus, since the claims as a whole do not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, the claims are directed to the recited judicial exceptions. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-17, filed 3/2/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan and Sittisombut. Applicant generally alleges Chamarajnager does not disclose “’generating ... a block that represents an event,’ particular where the block includes ‘first data that represents an identity of the entity, second data that describes the event, and third data that defines a time the observer device observed the activity with the user device.’”. Examiner disagrees. As cited in the above rejection of claim 1, Chamarajnager teaches generating, by the manager device and based on the event data, a block that represents the event ([0071] – “The management service 120 can generate an IoT event block based on the event data 170. The IoT event block can be an encrypted block that describes the IoT event and includes the IoT event data 170.”), wherein the block comprises first data that represents an identity of the entity ([0066] – “the sensor data 169 can indicate that a sensor of an IoT device 113 has triggered an IoT event […] If an IoT device 113 or IoT devices 113 have triggered an IoT event, the gateway 111 can generate IoT event data 170. The event data 170 can include the sensor data 169, as well as a name or identity of the IoT event that is triggered. The event data 170 can also include an entity responsible for the asset 115. The entity can be an enterprise or an individual, internal division, department, or group within the enterprise."), second data that describes the event ([0015] - "A block for the blockchain can be generated. The block can include a description of the loT event. The description can include the sensor data."), and third data that defines a time the observer device observed the activity with the user device ([0011] - "Events can also be dependent upon time, location, or other factors that can be measured by loT device sensors."; [0066] – “The event data 170 can include the sensor data 169”; [0052] – “The sensor data 169 can include any of the metrics tracked by the loT devices 113, including temperature, moisture, radiation, impact force, location, velocity, azimuthal angle, elevation angle, barometric pressure, time, date, biometric scans, and other data that is gathered, generated, tracked, or reported by the loT devices 113.”). Thus, the sensor data 169 triggering an IoT event, wherein the sensor data includes a time (i.e., a “time of the event”), is included in the corresponding event data 170 which is included in the generated block. Further the event data 170 is disclosed as including the identity of an entity responsible for the asset associated with the IoT device (“user device”) and its sensors (“observer devices”). Lastly, the generated block includes a description of the event, such as the sensor data itself. Applicant alleges “Chamarajnager does not disclose a "previous block" of any sort, let alone "adding a block to an activity log" where the log includes "a previous block."”. Examiner disagrees. Chamarajnager teaches recording and maintaining/preserving multiple blocks (emphasis on the plurality of blocks) in the blockchain data; therefore, for every block added to the blockchain after the first block, the blockchain data 148 (“activity log”) comprises a “previous block” (see [0009], [0054] and [0073]). Applicant alleges Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan does not teach "generating a hash of a portion of the activity log, wherein the portion comprises the block and the previous block." Examiner agrees. Accordingly, Sittisombut as presented in the rejection of claim 1 in the present Office Action has been relied upon to teach generating a hash of a portion of the of the activity log, wherein the portion comprises the block and the previous block. Regarding the arguments presented for claims 2-5, 8-13, and 15-20, on pages 17-21 of the Remarks filed 3/2/2025, the response presented above for claims 1, 7, and 14 applies. Regarding claim 6 (see pages 17-18 of the Remarks filed 3/2/2025), Applicant alleges Chamarajnager in view of Vasudevan fails to teach the limitations “the activity log comprises a circular buffer that represents events over a sliding window of time, and wherein an oldest block is removed from the activity log when a block time associated with the oldest block is no longer encompassed by the sliding window of time.” Examiner agrees. Accordingly, a new reference, Cozianu, is relied upon to teach the newly recited limitations of claim 6 as presented in the present Office Action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0212932) teaches metadata can be added into a blockchain as part of each transaction so that the metadata is stored with the same guarantees of persistence, immutability, and reliable access (see [0020]). Rodgers (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0324649) teaches an optimized method for logging events in which a circular buffer is used to temporarily store event messages before transferring to a secondary storage ([0028]). R et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0195544) teaches a method for providing a data structure for storing event logs associated with a tenant that are obtained during a time window without exceeding the storage size of the data structure (Abstract, [0011]). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER MARIE GUTMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1572. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Kevin Young can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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. /JENNIFER MARIE GUTMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194 /KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194