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 10/22/2025 in which claims 1-40 have been canceled and new claims 41-60 have been added. Thus, the claims 41-60 are pending in the application.
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 41-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of distributed ownership of the tangible asset without significantly more.
Examiner considers the claim 41 to be a representative claim that describes the invention presented in independent claims 41, 49, and 55.
Claim 41 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 41 recites a series of steps of generating, by a computing system, a visual representation of a tangible asset for display on a graphical user interface, wherein the visual representation is partitionable into portions and optionally subportions; receiving, based on the generating, a selection of a portion of the portions to yield a selected portion; modifying metadata associated with the selected portion based on user interaction; associating the selected portion with at least one of: (i) a unique identifier; (ii) a user profile; and (iii) a value or price, wherein the associating yields an association; storing the association in a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
updating a distributed ownership management system to reflect ownership of the selected portion. 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 computer system, a graphical user interface, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a distributed ownership management system do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 41 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 computer system, a graphical user interface, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a distributed ownership management system result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a computer system, a graphical user interface, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a distributed ownership management 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 41 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
The claim 41 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a computer system, a graphical user interface, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a distributed ownership management 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 41 is directed to an abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be presented for independent claims 49 and 55 which are substantially similar claim 41 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
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 of 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.
Dependent claims 42-48, 50-54, and 56-59 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 42-48, 50-54, and 56-59 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 41-60 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 41-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein, US Patent Application No. 2013/0222373 in view of Azmi et al., US Patent Application No. 2016/0253677.
Regarding claim 41, Weinstein discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, by a computing system, a visual representation of a tangible asset for display on a graphical user interface, wherein the visual representation is partitionable into portions and optionally subportions ([0062], Fig. 7);
receiving, based on the generating, a selection of a portion of the portions to yield a selected portion ([0069]-[0070], [0075], select a unit, [0076]-[0077]);
modifying metadata associated with the selected portion based on user interaction ([0072]-[0094]);
associating the selected portion with at least one of: (i) a unique identifier; (ii) a user profile; and (iii) a value or price, wherein the associating yields an association ([0004], Fig. 11, unit, model, price);
storing the association in a non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0075]-[0079]); and
updating a distributed ownership management system to reflect ownership of the selected portion.
Weinstein does not specifically disclose
updating a distributed ownership management system to reflect ownership of the selected portion.
However, Azmi discloses
updating a distributed ownership management system to reflect ownership of the selected portion ([0003], [0022]).
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 modify the above-noted disclosure of Weinstein to include the above-noted disclosure of Azmi. The motivation for combining these references would have been to sell the tangible asset.
Regarding claim 42, Azmi discloses transmitting transaction and/or ownership information about the tangible asset based on the selected portion ([0032]).
Regarding claim 43, Weinstein discloses monitoring interactions with at least the selected portion ([0075]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 44, Weinstein discloses enabling conveyance of the selected portion based on the association ([0075]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 45, Weinstein discloses enabling value of at least one of the portions to fluctuate independently from value of the tangible asset ([0089], change in pricing).
Regarding claim 46, Weinstein discloses wherein the generating comprises generating at least: (i) the unique identifier; (ii) the portions available; and (iii) the value and/or the price ([0004], Fig. 11, unit, model, price).
Regarding claim 47, Weinstein discloses receiving a representation of the tangible asset to facilitate the generating of the visual representation ([0062], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 48, Weinstein discloses transmitting user-specific preloading information based on previous user interaction with the visual representation of the tangible asset ([0021], [0065], allows the user to recall and display units that had previously been saved).
Regarding claim 51, Weinstein discloses providing auditing information about the transaction and/or ownership information ([0075]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 53, Azmi discloses enabling conveyance of the selected portion based on the association ([0017], [0022]).
Regarding claim 54, Azmi discloses iterating the method until the tangible asset has distributed ownership ([0022]).
Claims 49-50, 52, and 55-59 are substantially similar to claims 41-43 and 50-53 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 60 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of 101, Applicant states that independent claim 41 and its dependent claims integrate a specific technological solution – a distributed ownership management system – to solve the problem, of ownership tracking ownership. It goes beyond abstract ideas by reciting concrete steps implemented via computing systems and data structures, satisfying Alice Step 2. In a similar manner the claim 49 and its dependent claims introduce a specific computing mechanism for updating ownership of a tangible asset through a distributed ownership system that is a technical solution to a real-world problem. Claim 55 and its dependent claims tie specific users with auditing, which are technical safeguards that improve the reliability and security of distributed ownership of a tangible asset represented digitally. Claim 60 is directed to a specific, computer-implemented method for managing distributed ownership of tangible assets through spatial and dimensional mapping of physical items, hierarchical subdivision into milli-units tied to coordinates, interactive GUI functionality, and marketplace integration for pricing and transfer, which is a concrete, technological solution to a problem rooted in the physical world.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements in claims 49, 55, and 60 are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application as there is no technical improvement. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 41, 49, 56, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above in this office action.
Conclusion
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 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