DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/14/2025. Claims 1 and 23 have been amended, new claim 24-26 have been added, and claims 5-8 and 22 have been previously canceled. Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 21 and 23-26 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-4, 9, 10, 21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…wherein the second update is contingent on successful completion of the first update” does not appear to be supported by the specification. Applicant indicated that support for amendments may be found in Paragraphs [0021], [0026], [0039]-[0042], [0044], and [00656], as well as Figures 1-15 and paragraph [0018] of provisional 62/683,001. No such support was found. The Examiner further notes that the cited provisional only features 12 figures.
Dependent claims are rejected as well because they inherit the limitations of the independent claim 1.
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 1-4, 9, 10, 21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites (additional limitations crossed out):
A method of attention token rewards, the method comprising:
receiving,
displaying,
automatically collecting,
comparing, based at least in part on collecting the indicia of user attention to the media content, the third-party content-producing account to a list of content creators that are verified to accept digital asset rewards via the attention application;
automatically signing,
broadcasting the automatically signed message
transmitting [sending], to an attention consumer associated with the at least one privacy preserving ad, a second message comprising the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad, wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that verifies that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad is calculated correctly without revealing inputs to a calculation; and
receiving,
The above limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a marketing/sales activity. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by an “attention application” including a “digital asset wallet”, and a “user device” including “sensors”, nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being described as a marketing/sales activity. For example, but for the “attention application” ,“digital asset wallet”, “user device” and “sensors” language, the steps describe paying a publisher for presented content that has received attention, and paying a user for viewing presented ads, which are marketing/sales activities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of an advertising activity, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of an “attention application” and “user device” with “sensors” to perform the steps. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality (see at least Paras [0002], [0021]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Further, the inclusion of a “digital asset wallet”, and a “digital” asset reward merely serves to link the judicial exception (i.e., payment to a publisher and user) to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer environment). The claims also recite “automatically signing, using a private key associated with the digital asset wallet…” and “broadcasting the automatically signed message via a blockchain network such as to execute the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account, wherein the messages is configured to cause a first update a shared ledger of the blockchain network to reflect the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account”. However, these limitations merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception (i.e., payment to a publisher) to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., payment through blockchain). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using an “attention application” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, while the elements of a “digital asset wallet” and “digital” asset reward, and the limitations of “automatically signing, using a private key associated with the digital asset wallet…” and “broadcasting the automatically signed message via a blockchain network such as to execute the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account, wherein the messages is configured to cause a first update a shared ledger of the blockchain network to reflect the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account” merely link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, or general linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not found to be patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 9-10, 21 and 23-26 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, they are also found to be directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2-4 and 9-10 merely further narrow the abstract idea. For example, claims 2-4 merely describe attributes of the payment to the publisher, claim 5 merely describes the publisher, and claim 9 merely describes parameters of the digital asset reward. Claim 10 indicates that the media content is a “toast notification”, however this merely links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 21 discloses “authenticated hardware”, but this computing element merely serves to place the abstract idea of “authenticating data” in a computer environment. Claim 23 features the display of the portion of attention tokens designated for non-onboarded content creators. However, the display of data is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. The dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyooka (US 2020/0322685) in view of Allen (US 2015/0220928), “basic attention token – Introducing Blockchain-Based Digital Advertising” available on May 16, 2017 and hereinafter referred to as BAT1, “Announcing a new Blockchain-Based Digital Advertising Platform” by Basic Attention Token available on March 23, 2017 and hereinafter referred to as BAT22, and “Reducing Digital Ad Fraud: A New Deal with BAT” available on April 7, 2017 and hereinafter referred to as BAT33 (alternatively Mallinson (US 2008/0169930)).
Regarding claim 1, Kiyooka discloses a method of attention token rewards, the method comprising:
receiving, at an attention application on a user device, media content originating from a third-party content-producing account on a centralized media platform, the attention application including a digital asset wallet of attention tokens, wherein the attention application is anonymously associated with a user such that the attention application is not configured with personally identifiable information and prevents access to personally identifiable information of the user;
displaying, by the attention application, the media content received from the centralized media platform to a user of the attention application;
Kiyooka discloses a user viewing videos that have been uploaded by a content creator via a browser, wherein the content includes a tip button, wherein the user has an associated wallet, and wherein user-privacy infringing targeted ads are excluded (Paras. [0097], [0108], Fig. 4, and Fig. 6) Alternatively, BAT teaches a user’s private data never leaving their device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of BAT since it would allow for the preservation of user privacy.
Kiyooka also discloses automatically collecting, by one or more sensors of the user device, indicia of user attention to the media content during an attention session. Kiyooka discloses a user operating a displayed tipping button (i.e., indicia of user attention) that is displayed during video playback, and processing a tip to the content creator of the displayed video (Paras. [0025]-[0026]). This may be considered as collecting indicia of user attention since the tipping button is displayed during video feedback. Further, Kiyooka discloses user devices comprised of at least smartphones and tablets. Therefore, Kiyooka discloses the operations of the displayed tip-button via sensors (i.e., touchscreen sensors).
Kiyooka does not disclose comparing, based at least in part on collecting the indicia of user attention to the media content, the third-party content-producing account to a list of content creators that are verified to accept digital asset rewards via the attention application. BAT2 teaches verifying publishers that are to receive a basic attention token (i.e., digital asset reward). See “In early stages, the BAT will be specifically tied to Brave browsers and Brave servers, along with verified publishers.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of BAT2 since it would ensure that participating publishers receive basic attention tokens.
Kiyooka does not fully disclose automatically signing, using a private key associated with the digital asset wallet and based at least in part on the indicia of user attention during the attention session and the comparing, a message to execute a transfer of a first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account and not to the centralized media platform, the transfer executed such that the user is anonymous to the third-party content-producing account. While Kiyooka discloses transferring tips (i.e., digital asset rewards) to content creators, Kiyooka does not explicitly disclose the use of a private key associated with the digital asset wallet to execute the transfer, or transferring the digital asset reward to the third-party content producing account instead of to the centralized media platform. BAT2 teaches the utilization of Ethereum for the transfer and verification process of basic attention tokens. See “Beyond 1.0 BAT: Make the transfer and verification process entirely distributed on Ethereum using a state channel scheme with zero knowledge proof protocol for ensuring user privacy.” While not explicitly stating the use of a private key to execute a transaction, the Johnson reference notes that valid Ethereum transactions require the transaction to be signed using a private key. See “Everyone knows that to create a valid Ethereum transaction, you first have to sign it using your private key, and that only signed transactions are valid.” Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the blockchain payment process of the secondary reference(s) for the payment means of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Kiyooka also does not disclose broadcasting the automatically signed message via a blockchain network such as to execute the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account, wherein the messages is configured to cause a first update a shared ledger of the blockchain network to reflect the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account. Kiyooka discloses payments, however, Kiyooka does not disclose payment in the manner disclosed in the claim (i.e., cryptocurrency). Allen teaches that the transferring of cryptocurrency involves at least a user broadcasting a digitally signed message, updating a block chain (i.e., shared ledger), and transferring an amount to a recipient’s wallet (see at least Paras. [0004]-[0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of Allen since it would provide another avenue for payment in the system of Kiyooka.
Kiyooka also does not disclose transmitting, to an attention consumer associated with the at least one privacy preserving ad, a second message comprising the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad, wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that verifies that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad is calculated without revealing inputs to a calculation. BAT3 teaches the measuring of a user’s direct attention and engagement, as well as the reporting of ads viewed (i.e., indicia of user attention) wherein ad impressions are verifiable using Zero-Knowledge Proof Protocols. The Examiner notes that the language “wherein the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that verifies that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad is calculated without revealing inputs to a calculation” is simply a label for the message and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the particular data in the message) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method (i.e., the transmission of the message) does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have the reporting of ads viewed be comprised of a zero-knowledge proof because the manner in which the predefined action is determined does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the message differently from that of the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of BAT3 since it would preserve the privacy of users from advertisers.
Alternatively, Mallison teaches the limitation. BAT teaches measuring user attention to content, and being rewarded for their attention by advertisers. Further, BAT2 teaches the use of a Zero Knowledge Proof ledger system to protect individual user anonymity from advertisers, publishers, and third parties (i.e., attention consumers). However, they fail to outright disclose the particular features of the claim (i.e., the actual providing of the indicia of user attention to the attention consumer). Mallinson discloses providing information to determine a user’s level of attention (see at least Paras. [0040]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 to utilize the teachings of Mallinson since it would outright indicate that user attention information is provided to attention consumers, as implied by BAT and BAT2.
Kiyooka also does not disclose:
…wherein the media content includes at least one privacy preserving ad;
Collecting…indicia of user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad
Receiving, at the digital asset wallet, in accordance with a second update to the shared ledger of the blockchain network and in response to transmitting the second message comprising the indicia of the user attention, a transfer of a second digital asset reward based at least in part on the indicia of user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad, wherein the second update is contingent on successful completion of the first update
BAT teaches a system that measures attention paid to content and ads in a browser tab, and rewards users viewing ads with “basic attention tokens”. BAT also teaches that the ads are anonymously matched with customers (i.e., privacy preserving). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination Kiyooka (i.e., display of content and indications of user attention) to utilize the teachings of BAT since it would provide users with an incentive to view ads. In regards to the “in accordance with a second update to the shared ledger of the blockchain network”, the Examiner notes that this merely describes the process taught by Allen, but with a second transaction.
Regarding claim 2, Kiyooka discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the transfer of the first digital asset reward includes a set of payments to third-party content producing accounts on centralized media platforms, an amount of each payment in the set of payments being based on a fraction of attention of a user of the attention application paid to each third-party content producing account. Kiyooka discloses a system wherein a user may tip a content creator (i.e., 100% of payment based on attention) (Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Kiyooka discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet includes a one-time tip payment to the third-party content producing accounts. Kiyooka discloses a system wherein a user may tip a content creator (Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Kiyooka discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet is a recurring tip to the third-party content producing accounts. Kiyooka discloses a system wherein a user may tip a content creator multiple times (Paras. [0026], [0134]).
Regarding claim 24, Kiyooka does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the zero-knowledge proof comprises a cryptographic verification protocol that enables validation of attention metrics without revealing inputs to a calculation or exposing personally identifiable information to the attention consumer. BAT2 teaches the utilization of zero knowledge proof protocol. See “Beyond 1.0 BAT: Make the transfer and verification process entirely distributed on Ethereum using a state channel scheme with zero knowledge proof protocol for ensuring user privacy.” BAT3 also teaches the utilization of zero knowledge proof protocol. See “Only the user with the aid of BAT-enabled apps mediates between advertisers and publishers. so third-party invalid traffic and other fraud detection bypassed by bots will be excluded from the start. Private ad impressions and actions will be verifiable using Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) protocols such as Anonize (already used by the Brave browser for its opt-in micro-donation service). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of BAT2 and BAT3 since it would preserve the privacy of users from advertisers.
Regarding claim 25, Kiyooka does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the attention application implements prevents access to query logs, browsing history, and user classification profiles while maintaining verifiable attention measurement. In light of the 112 rejection above, at least BAT3 teaches this. BAT3 teaches the measuring of a user’s direct attention and engagement, as well as the reporting of ads viewed (i.e., indicia of user attention) wherein ad impressions are verifiable using Zero-Knowledge Proof Protocols. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of BAT3 since it would preserve the privacy of users from advertisers.
Regarding claim 26, Kiyooka does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the indicia of user attention includes scrolling speed, dwell time, cursor interactions, and page views. See Bat3 – “Attention is measured as viewed for content and ads only in the browser’s active tab in real time. The Attention Value for the ad will be calculated based on incremental duration and pixels in view in proportion to relevant content, prior to any direct engagement with the ad.”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka to utilize the teachings of BAT3 since it would provide an indication of the performance of content.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyooka in view of Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) and in further view of Redlich (US 2015/0120466)
Regarding claim 9, Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first digital asset reward depends at least in part on a dwell time on the media content. Redlich teaches a system wherein time spent on specific uploaded content is considered in determining a payment score for a content provider (Para. [0276]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) to consider time spent viewing content as taught by Redlich since longer viewer spend on content is an indication of higher quality content which would be reflected in higher payment (Para. [0287]).
Regarding claim 9, Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) do not disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the indicia of user attention includes scrolling speed, dwell time, cursor interactions, and page views. Redlich teaches a system wherein time spent on specific uploaded content is considered in determining a payment score for a content provider (Para. [0276]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) to consider time spent viewing content as taught by Redlich since longer viewer spend on content is an indication of higher quality content which would be reflected in higher payment (Para. [0287]).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyooka in view of Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson), and in further view of Lo (US 2019/0238937)
Regarding claim 10, Kiyooka, does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the media content includes a toast notification with a hyperlink. Lo teaches a system wherein the number of click-throughs on interactive content is tracked and wherein the interactive content incudes pop-up links (i.e., toast notifications) (Paras. [0033]-[0036]; Para. [0019] of associated provisional). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) to track click-throughs of pop-up links as taught by Lo since it would allow providers with knowledge about user behaviors and interests (Para. [0017]).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyooka in view of Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson), and in further view of Le Chevalier (US 2014/0068408)
Regarding claim 21, Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, BAT2, and BAT3 (alternatively Mallinson) do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the user device includes authenticated hardware that executes the attention application that authenticates the indicia of user attention. Le Chevalier teaches a system wherein authenticated devices report activities facilitated by a browser application to a centralized location (Para. [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiyooka, Allen, BAT, and BAT2 to utilize the teachings of Le Chevalier since it would allow for the providing of activities for a particular user account across different devices (Paras. [0036]-[0037]).
Examiner Notes
No prior art was found for claim 23 at this time. While the concept of distributing cryptocurrency to content creators based on a voting system was found (See Steemit NPL). No prior art was found in regards to designating tokens for payment to non-onboarded content creators, and determining that they have not signaled acceptance of tokens within a predetermined period.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that the use of an “attention application” that is “anonymously associated with a user such that the attention application is not configured with personally identifiable information and prevents access to personally identifiable information of the user” represents a technical improvement due to allegedly “preventing correlation of user data across content creators while maintaining verifiable attention metrics” is not persuasive. The claims as written merely describe the attention application as being anonymously associated with a user, and then providing metrics about said user. In other words, the attention application does not have access to the user’s PII. The fact that the attention application does not relay information that is unknown to it is not a technological improvement.
Applicant argues that the limitation “… the second message comprises a zero-knowledge proof that indicates that the indicia of the user attention to the at least one privacy preserving ad and is calculated correctly without revealing inputs to a calculation” represents a technical improvement that enhances privacy while maintaining verifiability. This is not persuasive. As explained in the body of the 103 rejection above, the language indicating that the message is comprised of the zero-knowledge proof is merely a label for the message. Further, even if taking in consideration the message comprising a zero-knowledge proof, the mere transmission of a zero-knowledge proof does not automatically equate to enhancing privacy while maintaining verifiability. It is merely the transmission of particular information.
Applicant argues that claim 23 implements “statistical voting that selects content creators using a weighted algorithm based on attention metrics” and therefore provides a technological solution to the technological problem of equitable creator compensation. This is not persuasive. Compensating creators is not a technological problem. If anything, it is a problem in the realm of business methods.
Applicant argues that “the claimed privacy-preserving attention verification system provides a technical improvement over conventional surveillance-based advertising systems”. This is not persuasive as it is merely a conclusory statement.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims are analogous to Finjan and BASCOM, and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application are not persuasive. As previously stated, the claims have not been found to provide a technical solution.
Based on at least the above, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that Kiyooka does not disclose “wherein the attention application is anonymously associated with a user such that the attention application is not configured with personally identifiable information and prevents access to personally identifiable information of the user”. This is not persuasive, as this is merely a conclusory statement. Further, even if it was found that Kiyooka did not teach the limitation in question, the Examiner notes that it was alternatively found to be taught by BAT. See “Alternatively, BAT teaches a user’s private data never leaving their device.” in rejection above.
Applicant argues that Allen does not disclose “broadcasting the automatically signed message via a blockchain network such as to execute the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account, wherein the messages is configured to cause a first update a shared ledger of the blockchain network to reflect the transfer of the first digital asset reward from the digital asset wallet to the third-party content-producing account”. This is not persuasive. As stated in the body of the rejection above, Kiyooka disclosed payment, but did not disclose payment in the manner disclosed in the claims. Allen was found to teach this in at least paragraphs [0004]-[0009]. See at least excerpts “Users send payment in bitcoin to others by broadcasting transactions, or digitally signed messages, to the Bitcoin network, specifying the recipient's address and the amount of bitcoin to be transferred. The sender "signs" the transaction with his/her private key so that anyone with the sender's public key can verify that the transaction is in fact originating with that sender.”, “Each time a transaction is broadcast on the Bitcoin network, a "miner" processes the transaction to ensure that all the information in the transaction is correct and then updates the block chain.”, and “Once there is confirmation of the transaction, the amount of bitcoin is transferred to the recipient's wallet.”.
Based on this, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Franham (US 2018/0357729) discloses users compensating content creators (Paras. [0013], [0109]).
“Soon, you’ll get paid in cryptocurrency to watch ads on your phone” by Permission.io, available on February 27, 2018 discusses providing compensation in crypto to users based on ad consumption
“Vimeo ‘Tip Jar’ Lets Users Pay Creators for Content” teaches paid Vimeo accounts being able to activate a button to allow users to donate by credit card or PayPal
“How to send Ether to 11,440 people” by Nick Johnson, available August 5, 2016 teaches that in order to create an Ethereum transaction, you first have to sign it using a private key.
“Interview with Brendan Eich, CEO of Brave” by Elio Qoshi, available May 2, 2016 teaches the use of zero-knowledge-based impression and click confirmation.
“An Introduction to Steemit - A Step by Step Guide for New Steemians” by shadowolfdg, available 20174, hereinafter referred to as Steemit, teaches the payment of crypto-rewards to content creators based on a voting system.
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 KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
1 Found at https://web.archive.org/web/20170516193711/https://basicattentiontoken.org/
2 Found at https://basicattentiontoken.org/announcing-a-new-blockchain-based-digital-advertising-platform/
3 Found at https://basicattentiontoken.org/reducing-digital-ad-fraud/
4 Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20221207124341/https://steemit.com/steemiteducation/@shadowolfdg/an-introduction-to-steemit-a-step-by-step-guide-for-new-steemians