DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of receiving a selection from a user to monetize data associated with the user, the selection included in at least a user profile created for the user; automatically compiling the data associated with the user based on the user profile, wherein the data is compiled from a plurality of sources and normalized; automatically grouping the data associated with the user into a data asset; associating the data asset…wherein the data set is encrypted using a cryptographic key; storing the encrypted data asset and record in distributed ledger; receiving transaction information for the data asset; performing one or more transactions for the data asset based on the transaction information and the user profile, wherein one or more transactions are performed utilizing logic…and documented in the distributed ledger; and providing verification of the one or more transactions for the data asset to the user from the distributed ledger, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity.
The claimed invention allows for the future valuation and management of personal data including receiving transaction information for the data, performing one or more transactions based on the transaction information, and verifying the transaction, which is a commercial interaction.
The mere nominal recitation of a data platform including one or more servers and databases (claim 1), a system comprising a plurality of electronic devices and a data platform accessible by the plurality of wireless devices (claim 11), and a server including a processor for executing a set of instructions and a memory for storing the set of instructions, and a plurality of databases in communication with the servers (claim 15), do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under step 2A, prong one of the Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, prong two of the PEG, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements— a data platform including one or more servers and databases (claim 1), a system comprising a plurality of electronic devices and a data platform accessible by the plurality of wireless devices (claim 11), and a server including a processor for executing a set of instructions and a memory for storing the set of instructions, and a plurality of databases in communication with the servers (claim 15). The data platform including servers and databases, a plurality of electronic devices, a plurality of wireless devices and a server including a processor for executing a set of instructions, memory storing instructions and a plurality of databases are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a data platform including on or more servers and databases, and as a generic server including a processor executing instructions performing the generic computer functions of receiving a selection, automatically compiling the data, automatically grouping data into a data asset, associating the data asset, storing the encrypted data set in a distributed ledger, receiving transaction information, performing one or more transactions for the data asset based on the transaction information, and providing verification of the transaction) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The claims achieve the result of performing transactions for data that incorporate monetizing data, securing data, authenticating data and verifying data by compiling data encrypting the data asset, storing the encrypted asset in a distributed ledger, authenticating the parties involved in the transaction, and documenting the transactions in the distributed ledger. Although encryption is used, such use is both generic and conventional. The object of the claims is to perform transactions, and securing the data asset involved in the transaction using encryption. The claims call for generic use of encryption in the manner this technology conventionally operates. Simply reciting a particular technological module or technological environment does not confer eligibility.
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 directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the PEG, the claim(s) does/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 a data platform including one or more servers and databases, a system comprising a plurality of electronic devices and a data platform accessible by the plurality of wireless devices, and a server including a processor for executing a set of instructions and a memory for storing the set of instructions, and a plurality of databases in communication with the servers, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, the use of encryption technology is well understood, routine and conventional. Here, the Specification does not provide any indication that the data platform, devices and memory are anything other than generic computer components and the following publications demonstrate the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements of encryption technology and storing the encrypted data asset in a distributed ledger when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here):
US 2019/0173854 (Beck);
US 2019/0237169 (Culver et al.);
US 2017/0103468 (Orsini et al.);
US 2017/0011460 (Molinari et al.).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the encrypting the data assets using the cryptographic key, storing the encrypted data asset in a distributed ledger, documenting transactions on the distributed ledger, and providing verification to the user via the distributed ledger, limitations are well understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer Option 3. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9, 12-14, 16-20 simply help to define the abstract idea.
As for claim 10, the claim recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted above. In addition, it recites the additional elements of the data platform is a trading platform for performing the one or more transactions, wherein the data platform communicates with a plurality of devices executing a mobile application in communication with the data platform. The trading platform and data platform communicating with a plurality of devices executing a mobile application are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puertolas-Montanes et al. (US 2014/0344015), hereinafter, Puertolas, in view of Soroca (WO 2010/104834 A2) in further view of Molinari et al. (US 2017/0011460).
Re-claim 1. Puertolas disclose:
receiving a selection from the user to monetize data associated with the user, the selection including at least a user profile created for the user (user becomes member of the mnopi system and has agreed to provide authorization granting the mnopi system access to data generated by subscriber -[0037]; [0038]; monetization of data associated with the user- [0012]-[0013]; [0016]; “Because there is an extensive range of information, assets, and other valuable data that may be gathered, managed, valuated, and/or traded as a product comprising an individual’s personal and behavioral profile…”-[0021]);
automatically, compiling the data associated with the user based on the user profile, wherein the data is compiled from a plurality of sources by the data platform (personal data aggregation wherein said personal data comprise diverse content-[0038]; preferred embodiments comprises a mnopi server where high-level data aggregation occurs and system-wide applications reside-[0042]; plurality of sources of personal data-[0049]; “Because there is an extensive range of information, assets, and other valuable data that may be gathered, managed, valuated, and/or traded as a product comprising an individual’s personal and behavioral profile…”-[0021]);
automatically grouping the data associated with the user into a data asset by the data platform (“Not only does a subscriber acquire control over outside actors' access to the relevant data as it arises from the subscriber's activity, but the subscriber also owns the data and its aggregated, analyzed, and transformed composite dataset that is produced and stored by applications and hardware within the centralized administrative component of the mnopi system.”- [0051]; Mnopi Platform [0052]; monetizing the aggregated user data into a data asset- [0053]; personal data asset-[0055]);
associating the data asset with the data platform including at least one or more servers and databases (service provider platform-[0003], servers and databases-[0042 ],[0061], composite dataset that is produced and stored by applications and hardware within the centralized administrative component of the mnopi system.”- [0051]; Fig. 3) ;
receiving transaction information for the data asset at the data platform (composite dataset that is produced and stored by applications and hardware within the centralized administrative component of the mnopi system.”- [0051]; Mnopi platform [0052]; transactions involving individually negotiated monetization terms -[0053]; [0055]);
performing one or more transactions for the data asset based on the transaction information and the user profile, wherein the one or more transactions are performed utilizing logic of the data platform (“The present invention provides an integrated system comprising means for enabling a consumer to control and monetize their personal data.”-[0016]; regulating of the data includes profile data [0019], data traded as an product includes individual’s personal profile-[0021]; monetizing the aggregated user data into a data asset- [0053]; options for capturing said monetary value based on use of personal data-[0054];the monetization of personal data of a consumer is screeded before being sold to interested parties.-[0055]);
and providing verification of the one or more transactions for the data asset (user validates data-[0046]; “dashboard provided to consumer to see and manage their user data and discover monetary value and determine how to allocate the data items and how to capture their value…transactions involving individually negotiated monetization terms”-[0053]).
Puertolas fail to disclose wherein the data is normalized by the data platform.
Soroca however, teaches the profile management platform (PMP) may include a number of modules to normalize the data collected from disparate data sources-[001107], and a user profile creation in the PMP may include data collection, normalization, enrichment, warehousing and analysis.-[001102].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include in the system and method of enabling a consumer to control and monetize their personal data of Puertolas the ability to normalize the data collected from disparate data sources as taught by Soroca since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Molinari, not Puertolas, disclose:
wherein the data asset is encrypted using a cryptographic key generated by the data platform, storing the encrypted data asset in a secure storage of the data platform and recorded in a distributed ledger accessible by the data platform (Interfaces provided by the cryptographic wallet and/or platform enable the users to perform trade-related functions (e.g., such as viewing investment information, issuing securities, and trading securities)-¶[0020]. The method further includes the step of storing a cryptographic wallet that includes encryption protocols for securely managing a virtual portfolio of securities. The cryptographic wallet may further include a first set of protocols for issuing securities. The first set of protocols are configured to store issued securities directly on the distributed blockchain ledger itself by utilizing a one-way hashing algorithm to append one or more blocks to the distributed blockchain ledger-[0012]; securities trading platform and blockchain enabled techniques ¶¶[0028-0030]);
wherein the data platform authenticates parties involved in the transaction (Information may be gathered to verify that the parties are eligible to conduct the transaction (e.g., to verify a buyer is an accredited investor and to verify a seller owns the security…) ¶¶[0046]; [0102]); wherein the one or more transactions are …documented in the distributed ledger (The first set of protocols are configured to store issued securities directly on the distributed blockchain ledger itself-¶[0012]); providing verification of the one or more transactions for the data asset to the user from the distributed ledger-(After a transfer contract is successfully confirmed, the cryptographic wallets 125 associated with the users 105 may append an entry to the ledger 175 that indicates completion of the contract and the change in the security's ownership. The entry that is appended to the ledger 175 may reference the blocks in the ledger 175 pertaining to the dataset associated with the security in order to indicate updated ownership of the security and provide a proper audit trail. In response to the ledger 175 being appended, a virtual data token associated with the security may be transferred from the cryptographic wallet 125 of the seller to the cryptographic wallet 125 of the buyer-¶ [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Puertolas to include encrypting data assets using a cryptographic key, storing the encrypted data asset in a distributed ledger maintained by the trading platform, authenticating parties involved in the transaction, documenting the transactions in the distributed ledger, and providing verification of the transactions for the data asset to the user from the distributed ledger as taught by Molinari in order to use Blockchain technology to trade, clear and settle securities transactions.
Re-claim 2. Puertolas disclose wherein the verification of the transaction is sent to the user in response to the data asset including data associated with the user (consumer utilizing the system is informed when any of their activity generates personal data and what monetary value is may have.-[0054]).
Re-claim 3. Puertolas disclose wherein the grouping further comprises associating the data with the user including one or more of an individual, business, entity, or organization (“Any of these elements may further comprise systems and methods for enabling the reflexive management of personal data according to the propositions that (1) an individual's personal control over the content, use, and value of his or her personal data should be maximized, (2) third parties' collection, use and/or control over said data should be made to require the informed consent of the respective individual to the greatest extent practicable, (3) property interests and other value in and of said data should be retained by and/or returned to said individual, (4) the value inherent in said data should be valuated not only by the market's criteria but also by criteria uniquely relevant to said individual, and (5) a company management entity should oversee and provide economies of scale and powerful means for accomplishing the ultimate goals desired by the subscribers across the spectrum of the internet value chain while providing goods and services focused directly towards this end.”-[0035]).
Re-claim 4. Puertolas disclose wherein the receiving is performed in response to an opt in from the plurality of sources. (Subscribers provide prior authorization from the system to access data generated by the subscriber.-[0037].
Re-claim 5. Molinari disclose wherein the one or more transactions are a futures transaction for the data. (futures contracts trading transactions-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Puertolas to include futures contracts trading transactions as taught by Molinari in order to enable issuance or secondary trading of any type of security. (Molinari, [0039]).
Re-claim 6. Puertolas disclose wherein the one or more transactions are performed utilizing blockchain. (invention may involve use of a platform-specific digital currency, such as cryptocurrency, as the means for monetizing the value of personal data, maintaining blockchain.-[0024]).
Re-claim 7. Puertolas disclose wherein the verification is recorded in a blockchain ledger. (invention may involve use of a platform-specific digital currency, such as cryptocurrency, as the means for monetizing the value of personal data, maintaining blockchain.-[0024]).
Molinari disclose that the one or more transactions are recorded in the distributed ledger in [0012], [0047].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Puertolas to include encrypting data assets using a cryptographic key, storing the encrypted data asset in a distributed ledger maintained by the trading platform, authenticating parties involved in the transaction, documenting the transactions in the distributed ledger, and providing verification of the transactions for the data asset to the user from the distributed ledger as taught by Molinari in order to use Blockchain technology to trade, clear and settle securities transactions.
Re-claim 8. Puertolas disclose wherein the transaction information includes at least a price for the data asset, the parties bound by the transaction, and an executing date. (Communicating details of transaction with buyers or third parties [0051]; user dashboards provides information about the data asset such as rates for type of personal data parties interested in purchasing the data, and value of data at a particular time [0053]- [0055]).
Re-claim 9. Puertolas disclose communicating the transaction information to parties involved in the one or more transactions or authorized to see the transaction including at least the user before performing the one or more transactions (The Mnopi system allows the user to see what types of data are being saved and permit him/her to block the storage of any data at any time, to allocate that data to different uses, and to evaluate the potential monetized value of said data.-[0059]; [0061]).
Re-claim 10. Puertolas disclose wherein the data platform is a trading platform for performing the one or more transactions, wherein the data platform communicates with a plurality of devices executing a mobile application in communication with the data platform. (Trading system and platform –[0052]; mobile devices [0028], [0059], and Fig. 3).
Claim 11 recites similar limitations found in claim 1 above and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale. Furthermore, Puertolas disclose a plurality of electronic devices executing a data application, the data application is configured to receive data from a plurality of sources including user; a data platform accessible by the plurality of wireless devices executing the data application through one or more networks, wherein the data platform groups the data received from the plurality of sources-(Trading system and platform –[0052]; mobile devices [0059], client application installed on the computing devices-[0028] and Fig. 3).
Claim 12 has similar limitations found in claim 2 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 13 has similar limitations found in claim 9 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 14 has similar limitations found in claims 6 and 7 in combination, as shown above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations found in claim 1 above and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale. Furthermore, Puertolas disclose a server including a processor for executing a set of instructions and a memory for storing the set of instructions; a plurality of databases in communication with the servers configured to store data –([0037],[0042]).
Claim 16 has similar limitations found in claim 2 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 17 has similar limitations found in claim 3 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 18 has similar limitations found in claim 9 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 19 has similar limitations found in claims 6 and 7 in combination, as shown above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Claim 20 has similar limitations found in claim 8 above, and therefore is rejected by the same art and rationale.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicants argue that the claims are directed to a specific technological method implemented by a specialized data platform computing system, and it is not a method of organizing human activity. Applicants further suggest that when considered as an ordered combination, the claims provide a concrete series of computer implemented operations that improve the technological manner in which heterogeneous user data is compiled, normalized, encrypted, stored, and transacted. Applicants argue that the claims recite monetization and transactions and do not recite generic computers and therefore are not certain methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Patent Office has issued guidance about this framework. -See MPEP§ 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020), in particular, Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c). As indicated in the MPEP § 2106, to decide whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim (1) recites one of the abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (“Prong One”) and (2) fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (“Prong Two”).
Beginning with Prong One, step 2A of the eligibility analysis, we must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. One of the subject matter groupings identified as an abstract idea in the Guidance is “[certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including . . . mitigating risk, insurance); commercial. . . interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; . . . sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including . . . following rules or instructions)].” See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Here, apart from the recited systems, i.e., a data platform including one or more servers and databases, claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the category of “methods of organizing human activity.” In the 101 analysis in the rejection above, the Examiner identifies and considers each of the underlying steps for the claims as a basis for describing and explaining the recited abstract idea. For example, the Examiner identifies the underlying steps of claim 1—i.e., the “receiving,” “automatically compiling,” “automatically grouping,” “associating,” “storing,” “performing,” and “providing”—and explains that they describe the concept of the future valuation and management of personal data including receiving transaction information for the data, performing one or more transactions based on the transaction information, and verifying the transaction, which is a commercial interaction (fundamental economic principal or practice) falling under the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. The Examiner' s approach here is consistent with USPTO guidance.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicants argue that the operations cannot be performed by a human and similar to Enfish, the claim improve the way a computer processes, secures, and manages data. The argument is not persuasive.
The focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools. The use of generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea.
Regarding the argument that the claims of the instant invention are similar to the claims at issue in Enfish, the claims in Enfish were not simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices; mathematical formulas performed on any general purpose computer; or generalized steps performed on a computer using conventional computer activity. The patent claims here are not directed to a specific implementation to a solution to a problem in the software arts of improving the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory through use of a specific data structure. In Enfish, the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computer could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Applicants argue that the specification further reinforces that the illustrative embodiments address computer-centric challenges, such as normalizing heterogeneous data, lifecycle encryption, distributed ledger anchoring, and automated transaction verification. These are technological problems specific to modern data-platform environments, not longstanding human activities. The argument is not persuasive.
Here, the claims recite a method and system for performing transactions for data. The claims recite a data platform including at least one or more servers including a processor for executing a set of instructions and memory for storing the set of instructions, databases, and a system comprising a plurality of electronic devices. processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic platform including a server and processor performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claimed invention uses well-known encryption and distributed ledger technology as evidenced in the publication cited in the rejection above. 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 Examiner fails to see, and the Applicant fails to point out, how the steps are unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application.
Applicants suggest that the claims recite a technical improvement to computer functionality and under Enfish, McRO, and SAP America v. InvestPic, claims that improve computer functionality or data processing are not abstract. The argument is not convincing.
In Enfish, the claims were eligible at step one because they were directed to a self-referential table that improved a computer’s functionality by improving the way it stored and retrieved data in memory. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336–39 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1349 (“The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities.”). In McRO, the claims were eligible at step one because they used a “combined order of specific rules” to achieve “an improved technological result.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And in SAP America v. InvestPic, it was clear that the claims themselves and the Specification that the limitation require no improved computer resources but used already available computers, with their already available functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. In Enfish, Bascom, and McRO, the nature of the claims read in light of their specifications confirmed that they were directed to—were focused on—an actual technological improvement. The same cannot be said here. Applicants’ Specification, see page 1, Field of Disclosure, recites “The illustrative embodiments relate to personal data management. More specifically, but not exclusively, the illustrative embodiments relate to a system, method, apparatus, and platform for the futures valuation and management of personal data.” The claims recite computer technology at a high level of generality and are recited as being used to implement the claimed steps and functions in their ordinary capacity. The improvement here lies in a business process, and not a technological improvement.
On page 11, Applicants argue that the claim requires: a "cryptographic key", data grouped into a "data asset", and storing the "encrypted data asset in a secure storage of the data platform", and "verification of the one or more transactions for the data asset to the user from the distributed ledger." Applicants suggest that none of these operations are routine or conventional in combination and that the Examiner has not cited any reference, nor does any exist, that performs this specific asset-creation, encryption, ledger-anchoring, and verification pipeline. Applicants further argue that this is precisely the type of "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known components" that the Supreme Court deemed patent-eligible in Bascom. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As indicated in the 35 USC 101 rejection above, encryption technology and storing the encrypted data asset in a distributed ledger when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). The Examiner has provided support under Berkheimer Option 3 by listing publications in the rejection above.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
On page 13 of the Remarks, regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103,
Applicants argue that claim 1 recites a specific technological pipeline for transforming heterogeneous user data into a unified, encrypted, ledger-recorded data asset and executing authenticated transactions on that data asset and that Puertolas fails to teach “automatically compiling the data associated with the user based on the user profile, wherein the data is compiled from a plurality of sources and normalized by the data platform.” The argument is not convincing. Puertolas teaches personal data aggregation wherein said personal data comprise diverse content-[0038]; preferred embodiments comprises a mnopi server where high-level data aggregation occurs and system-wide applications reside-[0042].
Applicants argue that Puertolas fails to teach “automatically grouping the data associated with the user into a data asset by the data platform.” The argument is not convincing. Puertolas teaches an aggregated, analyzed, and transformed composite dataset that is produced and stored by applications and hardware within the centralized administrative component of the mnopi system.”- [0051]; Mnopi Platform [0052]; monetizing the aggregated user data into a data asset- [0053].
Applicants argue that Puertolas fails to teach wherein the data asset is encrypted using a cryptographic key generated by the data platform and storing the encrypted data asset in a distributed ledger maintained by the data platform. The argument is not convincing. Molinari disclose interfaces provided by the cryptographic wallet and/or platform enable the users to perform trade-related functions (e.g., such as viewing investment information, issuing securities, and trading securities)-¶[0020], encryption protocols for securely managing a virtual portfolio of securities-[0012]; The cryptographic wallet may further include a first set of protocols for issuing securities. The first set of protocols are configured to store issued securities directly on the distributed blockchain ledger itself by utilizing a one-way hashing algorithm to append one or more blocks to the distributed blockchain ledger-[0012].
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., storing encrypted user-data assets created by a data-normalization engine) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Nevertheless, the arguments concerning the amended claim limitation of data normalized by the data platform has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argue that Puertolas fails to teach receiving transaction information for the data asset at the data platform, wherein the data platform authenticates parties involved in the transaction. The argument is not convincing. Puertolas discloses a composite dataset that is produced and stored by applications and hardware within the centralized administrative component of the mnopi system.”- [0051]; Mnopi platform [0052]; transactions involving individually negotiated monetization terms -[0053]; [0055]. Molinari disclose wherein the data platform authenticates parties involved in the transaction (Information may be gathered to verify that the parties are eligible to conduct the transaction (e.g., to verify a buyer is an accredited investor and to verify a seller owns the security…) ¶¶[0046]; [0102]).
Applicants argue that Puertolas fails to teach performing one or more transactions for the data asset based on the transaction information and the selection, wherein the one or more transactions are performed utilizing logic of the data platform and documented in the distributed ledger. The argument is not convincing. Puertolas disclose “The present invention provides an integrated system comprising means for enabling a consumer to control and monetize their personal data.”-[0016]; monetizing the aggregated user data into a data asset- [0053]; options for capturing said monetary value based on use of personal data-[0054];the monetization of personal data of a consumer is screeded before being sold to interested parties.-[0055]. Molinari discloses
wherein the one or more transactions are …documented in the distributed ledger (The first set of protocols are configured to store issued securities directly on the distributed blockchain ledger itself-¶[0012]).
Applicant suggests that neither Puertolas nor Molinari disclose “providing verification of the one or more transactions for the data asset to the user from the distributed ledger.” The argument is not persuasive. Molinari teaches “After a transfer contract is successfully confirmed, the cryptographic wallets 125 associated with the users 105 may append an entry to the ledger 175 that indicates completion of the contract and the change in the security's ownership. The entry that is appended to the ledger 175 may reference the blocks in the ledger 175 pertaining to the dataset associated with the security in order to indicate updated ownership of the security and provide a proper audit trail. In response to the ledger 175 being appended, a virtual data token associated with the security may be transferred from the cryptographic wallet 125 of the seller to the cryptographic wallet 125 of the buyer”-¶ [0047]).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694