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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 5/20/2026 in which claims 1-59 have been canceled and new claims 61-79 have been added. Thus, the claims 60-79 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered.
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 60-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of managing distributed ownership of a tangible asset without significantly more.
Claim 60 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 60 recites a series of steps, e.g., generating, by a processor, a visual representation of the tangible asset, wherein the tangible asset comprises any physical, non-transitory item, and the visual representation corresponds to a spatial or dimensional mapping of the tangible asset with enabled subdivision into ownership units; defining the ownership units in a hierarchical structure comprising at least milli-units, each unit associated with a coordinate location and ownership metadata; providing, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a display of the visual representation and enabling user interaction with the ownership units, the GUI further configured to support zooming within a milli-unit level and between additional hierarchical levels; receiving user input of selected one or more ownership units for inquiry, acquisition, modification, transfer, and combinations thereof; updating the ownership metadata of the selected one or more ownership units; displaying, within the GUI, visual indicators of ownership status and user-applied modifications associated with the selected one or more ownership units; and facilitating pricing and transfer of ownership units through a marketplace interface integrated with the GUI. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of distributed ownership of the tangible asset, which may correspond to a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity ( purchasing ownership interest in the tangible asset) and a Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; visual representation of the tangible asset). The additional limitations of a processor and a graphical user interface (GUI) do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 60 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a processor and a graphical user interface (GUI) result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a processor and a graphical user interface (GUI) are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 60 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
The claim 60 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor and a graphical user interface (GUI) are all recited at a high level of generality and its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a general purpose computer which is performing its routine, well-understood, and conventional function similar to what has been found by the courts not to be adding significantly more to the underlying abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). Hence, the claim 60 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 65 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 65 recites a series of steps, e.g., receiving, by a computing system, a visual representation of the tangible asset having measurable dimensions and a resolution; dividing the visual representation of the tangible asset into a plurality of portions based upon, at least in part, a value of the tangible asset and based upon the measurable dimensions and the resolution of the visual representation in relation to predefined dimensions and a predefined resolution of each individual portion, such that each portion has a predefined unit value. computing, by the computing system, a coordinate location for each portion based upon the measurable dimensions and the resolution of the visual representation in relation to predefined dimensions and a predefined resolution of each individual portion, and mapping each portion to its respective coordinate location; storing, in a storage mechanism, entries for the tangible asset and for each of the portions, each entry storing at least the coordinate location and an ownership status indicative of whether the portion is associated with any user; optionally further dividing at least one portion into a plurality of sub-portions and computing a coordinate location for each sub-portion within the coordinate location of the portion, and storing, for each sub-portion, the sub-portion coordinate location and an ownership status; providing, via a graphical user interface, a display of the visual representation with the plurality of portions and, where present, the plurality of sub-portions, the graphical user interface configured to enable navigation and zooming into and among the portions and sub-units based on the computed coordinate locations; receiving, via the graphical user interface, a user selection of at least one portion or, where a selected portion has been further divided, at least one sub-portion; associating the selected portion or sub-portion with a user profile; and updating the ownership status in the entry corresponding to the selected portion or sub-portion to reflect the association with the user profile, such that only one user may be associated with a specific portion or unit at a time, wherein the coordinate computation from the measurable dimensions and the resolution of the visual representation, together with the exclusive single-user association of each portion, provide a rule-based process for transforming the visual representation into a coordinate-indexed data structure. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of distributed ownership of the tangible asset, which may correspond to a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity ( purchasing ownership interest in the tangible asset) and a Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; visual representation of the tangible asset). The additional limitations of a computing system, a graphical user interface (GUI), and a display, and a coordinate-indexed data structure do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 65 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a computing system, a graphical user interface (GUI), and a display, and a coordinate-indexed data structure result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a computing system, a graphical user interface (GUI), and a display, and a coordinate-indexed data structure are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 65 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
The claim 65 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a computing system, a graphical user interface (GUI), and a display, and a coordinate-indexed data structure are all recited at a high level of generality and its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a general purpose computer which is performing its routine, well-understood, and conventional function similar to what has been found by the courts not to be adding significantly more to the underlying abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). Hence, the claim 65 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 70 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 70 recites a series of steps, e.g., generating, by a computing system, a visual representation of the tangible asset divided into a plurality of portions, each portion associated with an ownership status; providing the plurality of portions for display within a graphical user interface of at least one client computing device; receiving a user selection of at least one portion and associating the selected portion with a user profile; monitoring, by the computing system, one or more user interactions with the plurality of portions across one or more sessions, and maintaining, in association with the user profile, a count of user interactions with each portion; in response to determining that the count of user interactions with a particular portion meets or exceeds a threshold number of interactions, preloading, by the computing system, information associated with the particular portion to the client computing device associated with the user profile during a subsequent user interaction with the visual representation, wherein the threshold number is at least one of user-definable or system-defined; and updating the ownership status of the selected portion in a distributed ownership management system to reflect the association with the user profile, wherein the monitoring of user interactions across sessions and the threshold-triggered preloading of information to the client computing device improve the user's experience interacting with the visual representation by reducing the latency of subsequent user interactions with portions the user has previously interacted with, providing a technical improvement to the functioning of the client-server system. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of distributed ownership of the tangible asset, which may correspond to a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity (purchasing ownership interest in the tangible asset) and a Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; visual representation of the tangible asset). The additional limitations of a computing system/device, a graphical user interface (GUI), system, and the client-server system do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 70 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a computing system/device, a graphical user interface (GUI), system, and the client-server system result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a computing system/device, a graphical user interface (GUI), system, and the client-server system are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 70 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
The claim 70 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a computing system/device, a graphical user interface (GUI), system, and the client-server system are all recited at a high level of generality and its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a general purpose computer which is performing its routine, well-understood, and conventional function similar to what has been found by the courts not to be adding significantly more to the underlying abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). Hence, the claim 70 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 75 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 75 recites a series of steps, e.g., generating, by a distributed ownership management process executing on a server computing system, a visual representation of a tangible asset divided into a plurality of portions, each portion being selectable and associated with an ownership status; storing, in a storage mechanism associated with the server computing system, for each portion, a unique identifier, a grid location, and an ownership status; receiving, from one or more client computing devices, a request to associate a selected portion with a user; updating the ownership status of the selected portion to indicate that only one user may be associated with the portion at a time; providing, by the distributed ownership management process, a wallet function configured to display data regarding the user's owned units; synchronizing, via the wallet function, data regarding the user's owned units between the distributed ownership management process and the client computing device; in response to a transfer of the selected portion from the user to a second user, disassociating the selected portion from the user and associating the selected portion with the second user, and propagating the updated ownership status via the synchronization; and providing, via the graphical user interface, a visual indicator indicative of whether each portion is associated with any user. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of distributed ownership of the tangible asset, which may correspond to a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity (purchasing ownership interest in the tangible asset) and a Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; visual representation of the tangible asset). The additional limitations of a server computing system, a storage mechanism, computing devices, and a graphical user interface (GUI) do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 75 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a server computing system, a storage mechanism, computing devices, and a graphical user interface (GUI) result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a server computing system, a storage mechanism, computing devices, and a graphical user interface (GUI) are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 75 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
The claim 75 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a server computing system, a storage mechanism, computing devices, and a graphical user interface (GUI) are all recited at a high level of generality and its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a general purpose computer which is performing its routine, well-understood, and conventional function similar to what has been found by the courts not to be adding significantly more to the underlying abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). Hence, the claim 75 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 61-64, 66-69, 71-74, and 76-79 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. There is no inventive concept that adds significantly more and hence the claims 61-64, 66-69, 71-74, and 76-79 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 60-79 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 60-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein, US Patent Application No. 2013/0222373.
Regarding claim 60, Weinstein discloses a computer-implemented method for managing distributed ownership of a tangible asset, the method comprising:
generating, by a processor, a visual representation of the tangible asset, wherein the tangible asset comprises any physical, non-transitory item, and the visual representation corresponds to a spatial or dimensional mapping of the tangible asset with enabled subdivision into ownership units ([0062], Fig. 7);
defining the ownership units in a hierarchical structure comprising at least milli-units, each unit associated with a coordinate location and ownership metadata ([0004], Fig. 11, unit, model, price);
providing, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a display of the visual representation and enabling user interaction with the ownership units, the GUI further configured to support zooming within a milli-unit level and between additional hierarchical levels ([0069]-[0070], [0075]-[0077]);
receiving user input of selected one or more ownership units for inquiry, acquisition, modification, transfer, and combinations thereof ([0072]-[0094]);
updating the ownership metadata of the selected one or more ownership units ([0075]-[0079]);
displaying, within the GUI, visual indicators of ownership status and user-applied modifications associated with the selected one or more ownership units; and facilitating pricing and transfer of ownership units through a marketplace interface integrated with the GUI ([0075]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine different disclosure of Weinstein in order to sell the tangible asset.
Regarding claim 61, Weinstein discloses
displaying a grid overlay corresponding to the coordinate locations of the ownership units (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 62, Weinstein discloses associating the ownership metadata comprising at least one of: unique identifier, a grid location, a current owner, a current value, and a cryptologic audit value ([0004], Fig. 11, unit, model, price).
Regarding claim 63, Weinstein discloses color-coding the ownership units based on ownership status as visual indicators ([0064]).
Regarding claim 64, Weinstein discloses enabling a user, via the marketplace interface, to define a price for a selected ownership unit ([0004], Fig. 11, price).
Response to Arguments
Applicant does not present any specific arguments except to state that in view of the amended claims, Applicant respectfully request withdrawal of all rejections and allowance of the application.
Examiner respectfully notes that these arguments are not persuasive and maintains the rejection as presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights