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 is responsive to amendment filed on 12/23/25. Claims 48-52, 54-66 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Claims 48, 54 and 63 are amended. Claims 1-47, 53 and 67 are canceled.
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 48-52, 54-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Although claims 48-52, 54-66 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
5. Claims 48-52, 54-66 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The identified limitations of independent claims 48 and 63 recite:
As to claim 48, A system, comprising: an incentive protocol platform; and at least one participant electronic device communicatively coupled to the incentive protocol platform, wherein the at least one participant electronic device includes biometric feedback device functions through which biometric data is obtained from a participant and transmitted to the incentive protocol platform as biometric data, wherein the incentive protocol platform further includes:
an incentive transaction communication module configured to receive the biometric data from the at least one participant electronic device;
an incentive transaction module configured to generate an incentive unit transaction based on the biometric data by using one or more incentive protocol system rules to determine a type or amount of an incentive unit that is to be distributed for non- transactional behavior of the participant associated with the biometric data [certain method of organizing human activity.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a fundamental economic practice and a commercial/sales interaction—namely, awarding and distributing an incentive (e.g., a reward or loyalty unit) to a participant in response to the participant’s behavior. Specifically, the “obtaining/receiving biometric data” step encompasses collecting information about a participant’s behavior; the “generate an incentive unit transaction… to determine a type or amount of an incentive unit that is to be distributed for non-transactional behavior” step encompasses applying rules to decide what reward to give; and the “distribute the incentive unit to a wallet” step encompasses awarding that reward to the participant. Distributing incentives/rewards for behavior is a longstanding commercial and marketing practice (analogous to a loyalty-rewards program), which falls within “commercial or legal interactions (including… advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations];
an incentive distribution module configured to receive incentive unit transaction data from the incentive transaction module and distribute the incentive unit to a wallet associated with the participant, wherein the incentive distribution module is further configured to broadcast the incentive unit transaction data to an incentive protocol network for inclusion in a distributed ledger to confirm the incentive unit transaction including the incentive unit transmitted to the wallet associated with the participant;
a white-label service that is configured to issue white-label tokens on top of a coalition distributed ledger as a stand-alone program, wherein the white-label tokens function as the incentive unit and
a mint modification module built into the distributed ledger and configured to modify, on-demand, a number of tokens minted within a block time of the distributed ledger, wherein the mint modification module interfaces with the incentive distribution module to generate tokens comprising the white-label tokens with additional or layered incentive data based on the incentive unit transaction.
The identified limitations recite in system and a method for transmitting incentivize transactional and non-transactional behaviors. The claim limitations fall within the certain method of organizing human activity (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) groupings of abstract ideas. The claim limitations using generic computing components does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain method of organizing human activity concept grouping. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “generating…” encompasses certain method of organizing human activity.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a fundamental economic practice and a commercial/sales interaction—namely, awarding and distributing an incentive (e.g., a reward or loyalty unit) to a participant in response to the participant’s behavior. Specifically, the “obtaining/receiving biometric data” step encompasses collecting information about a participant’s behavior; the “generate an incentive unit transaction… to determine a type or amount of an incentive unit that is to be distributed for non-transactional behavior” step encompasses applying rules to decide what reward to give; and the “distribute the incentive unit to a wallet” step encompasses awarding that reward to the participant. Distributing incentives/rewards for behavior is a longstanding commercial and marketing practice (analogous to a loyalty-rewards program), which falls within “commercial or legal interactions (including… advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
As a whole,the additional elements of claims 48 and 63 recite:
As to claim 48, A system, comprising: an incentive protocol platform; and at least one participant electronic device communicatively coupled to the incentive protocol platform, wherein the at least one participant electronic device includes biometric feedback device functions through which biometric data is obtained from a participant and transmitted to the incentive protocol platform as biometric data, wherein the incentive protocol platform further includes:
an incentive transaction communication module configured to receive the biometric data from the at least one participant electronic device;
an incentive transaction module configured to generate an incentive unit transaction based on the biometric data by using one or more incentive protocol system rules to determine a type or amount of an incentive unit that is to be distributed for non- transactional behavior of the participant associated with the biometric data;
an incentive distribution module configured to receive incentive unit transaction data from the incentive transaction module and distribute the incentive unit to a wallet associated with the participant, wherein the incentive distribution module is further configured to broadcast the incentive unit transaction data to an incentive protocol network for inclusion in a distributed ledger to confirm the incentive unit transaction including the incentive unit transmitted to the wallet associated with the participant;
a white-label service that is configured to issue white-label tokens on top of a coalition distributed ledger as a stand-alone program, wherein the white-label tokens function as the incentive unit and
a mint modification module built into the distributed ledger and configured to modify, on-demand, a number of tokens minted within a block time of the distributed ledger, wherein the mint modification module interfaces with the incentive distribution module to generate tokens comprising the white-label tokens with additional or layered incentive data based on the incentive unit transaction.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describe how to mere providing transaction and performing sales activities, recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary providing transaction and performing sales activities. See MPEP 2106.05. electronic device, incentive protocol platform, in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of the claimed invention, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the as explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements. The additional element of “electronic device, incentive protocol platform” “ in are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional elements that were underline were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary providing transaction and performing sales activities. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 48-52, 54-66, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 49-52, 54-62, 64-66 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, Claims 49 and 64 – recite that the incentive unit transaction data include crypto transaction data including at least a private key or address to effectuate the incentive unit distribution. This merely further describes the data used in the abstract idea (details of the transaction) and recites generic data used within the distributed-ledger environment (generally linking / extra-solution activity). Claims 50 and 65 – recite that the incentive unit includes an amount or value of tokens for distribution, and (claim 65) that the incentive distribution module refers to a location where tokens are originally called via a remote procedure call. Reciting the amount/value of the incentive further defines the abstract idea itself, and the remote procedure call to obtain tokens is generic data-retrieval within the distributed-ledger environment, amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity generally linked to the technological environment. Claim 51 – recites that, when broadcasting the transaction data, the incentive distribution module refers to a location where the incentive unit tokens are originally called via a remote procedure call. This recites generic data retrieval/transmission within the distributed-ledger environment (extra-solution activity, generally linking). Claims 52 and 66 – recite that standalone programs on the coalition distributed ledger interact according to parameters defined by participant program operators to allow white-label tokens of different operators to freely exchange. This further describes the commercial interaction (organizing human activity—the exchange/redemption of rewards among operators) and generally links the abstract idea to the distributed-ledger environment. It does not impose a meaningful limit.
Claims 54, 55, and 56 – recite that the mint modification module is built into the distributed ledger, and that the distributed ledger includes a block chain (claim 55) or is associated with, but does not include, a block chain (claim 56). These limitations merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (blockchain/distributed ledger) and recite generic computer components; they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Claim 57 – recites that the at least one participant electronic device is a wearable device configured to obtain and transmit the biometric data. This further defines insignificant extra-solution data-gathering activity (specifying a generic device that collects and transmits data). Claim 58 – recites that the biometric data include heartbeat, blood pressure, and/or blood sugar level of the participant. Specifying the particular type of collected data merely narrows the insignificant extra-solution data-gathering activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Claims 59, 60, 61, and 62 – recite that the wallet includes a code affixed to a product/packaging (claim 59); that the code includes a scannable broadcast viewable via a smart phone running an incentive protocol application to view an amount of the incentive unit (claim 60); that the code is enterable into a webpage to view the amount (claim 61); and specify the types of code, including a QR code, snap tag, 2d mobile barcode, hologram, watermark, invisible printed element, invisible image, graphic element, series of sound tones, or series of letters and numbers (claim 62). These limitations recite generic data-representation and output/display elements used as tools to convey or output the result of the abstract idea (the incentive amount), amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation that does not impose a meaningful limit on the exception.
Therefore, dependent claims 49-52, 54-62, 64-66 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 48 and 63.
Therefore, claim(s) 48-52, 54-66 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues "... modifies the fundamental operation of a distributed ledger's token minting process in real-time, block-by-block. As described in the specification at paragraphs [0052]-[0053], the mint modification module enables on-demand modification of token minting that would not be possible without the specific technical architecture recited in the claims. In the Memorandum issued by US Patent and Trademark Office on August 4, 2025, the Office states that "[e]xaminers should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) from claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." With aspect to the claimed invention, even though "determin[ing] a type or amount of an incentive unit" may have an relevance to organizing human activities, the claimed invention does not set forth specific details on how to determine the type or amount of the incentive unit. Instead, the claimed invention is focused on addressing the possible technical problems in digitally managing the incentive unit, for example, by configuring specific components in the distributed ledger environment to achieve the expected functions. In other words, the claimed invention merely involves an exception, but itself is not directed to the alleged organizing human activities... ” (from remarks pages 7-9).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claimed problem and solution are not specific to computer networks and, contrary to the claims in DDR. Also, a claim may integrate the judicial exception when, for example, it reflects an improvement to technology or a technical field. Id. “To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The claim does not recite an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). All of the purported improvements are to the abstract idea itself, similar to the cases involving data storage and
retrieval. See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1065 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (explaining that “[s]toring, retrieving, and providing data . . . are inconsequential data gathering and insignificant post solution activity”), aff’d, 687 F.3d 1266
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Minor (US 2015/0332256 A1) disclose the system has a user account database server to store data pertaining to user accounts. A cryptocurrency account server receives a transfer of cryptocurrency from an external cryptocurrency account under control of the user. A user interface server receives a request from user for conversion to an asset of cryptocurrency associated with user account of the user. The data pertaining to the user account of the user is updated to indicate a credit and debit of an obligation of the system to user for a virtual asset and cryptocurrency.
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 HITESH R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
9/16/26
