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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an amendment on June 06, 2025. Claims 1-27 were pending in the Application. Claims 12, 19, and 27 are amended. Claim 28 has been added. Claims 15-17 and 21-22 remain canceled, with claims 1-11 and 20 remaining withdrawn. Claims 12 and 19 are the independent claims, the remaining claims depend on claims 12 and 19. Thus claims 12-14, 18-19, and 23-28 are currently pending. After careful and full consideration of Applicant arguments and amendments, the Examiner finds them to be moot and/or not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
In the context of Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, paragraph 20 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 06, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, paragraph 20 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 06, 2025, moot. Examiner hereby maintains the Claim Interpretation, Intended Use, paragraph 20 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 06, 2025.
In the context of Claim Interpretation, Not Positively Recited, paragraph 23 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 06, 2025, Applicant has not adequately amended to render the Claim Interpretation, Not Positively Recited, moot. Examiner hereby maintains the Claim Interpretation, Not Positively Recited, paragraph 23 of the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 06, 2025.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant does not necessarily agree with this rejection and respectfully traverses the rejection. Applicant is of the opinion that the claims are statutory and submits that “amended independent claim 12 is not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a specific technological improvement in the field of distributed ledger platforms; even if the claim is deemed to recite an abstract idea, it integrates the idea into a practical application and includes significantly more than the abstract idea itself; these steps are not abstract but rather define a specific, technical process for using blockchain technology to enable point of sale systems to validate admission tokens in connection with an electronic ticketing system; the claimed method cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper, as it relies on cryptographic protocols, distributed ledger platforms, and network communications; the claim integrates any such idea into a practical application as required by Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; and the claim recites additional elements that apply the alleged abstract idea in a manner that imposes meaningful limits and provides technological improvements, including elements directed to distributed ledgers, cryptographic protocols, and point of sale systems.”
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the claimed arrangement is directed to an abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions” that is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” in prong one of step 2A.
Initially, the Examiner would like to point out that the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106, which applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed to" two-prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1. and II.B.2.).
The Specification, (PG Pub US 20230116613 A1, para 3), provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the specification, (‘613 A1, para 3), discloses that the invention relates to recording ownership of assets and enabling entities to carry out transactions using tokens associated with those assets, and is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, in prong one of step 2A. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
Claim 12 provides additional evidence, and recites the limitations of “issuing, …, a first … demand token by writing the first … demand token”; “transmitting, …, an indication to convert the first … demand token to an admission token”; “the first … demand token including ownership information and activity information, the ownership information indicating that the first … demand token is owned by the first entity and the activity information indicating a first activity associated with admission of a holder of the admission token to an event”; “wherein the ownership of the first … demand token is transferable from the first entity to other entities over the … in accordance with a first protocol for verifying the ownership information and validating a corresponding transaction for the transfer of the first … demand token”; “wherein the admission token is generated … in compliance with one or more rules, the admission token associated with admission information for the holder of the admission token, the admission information comprising data usable … to validate the admission token”; “receiving an indication authorized by the second entity to transfer, using the first protocol, the first … demand token to a third entity in consideration for a third quantity of currency transferred from the third entity to the second entity”; “the first … demand token associated with a second quantity of currency provided to the first entity in consideration for transfer of the first … demand token from the first entity to the second entity at a time prior to the transfer of the … demand token from the second entity to the third entity, and the first … demand token further associated with a reference to at least a first … program, the first … demand token representing ownership information about an asset associated with an event”; “wherein the admission token is redeemed, …, wherein redemption of the admission token comprises validation, …, of the admission token, thereby validating the admission of the holder of the admission token to the event”; “committing, to one or more records … in accordance with the first protocol, data associated with: the transfer of the first … demand token to the third entity”; “a transfer of a first portion of the third quantity of currency to the first entity, wherein the first portion is determined based on the third quantity of currency and the second quantity of currency”; and “a transfer of a second portion of the third quantity of currency to the second entity”. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim such as “an electronic ledger platform”, “cryptographic tokens”, “a first cryptographic token”, “an issuing system”, “a block”, “an admission system”, “point of sale system”, “an electronic ledger”, and “a system”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to automating and/or implementing the acts of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions.”
Examiner notes the basis of the rejection was, and is not as any mental process covering performance in the mind, but classified as an abstract idea, “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”, grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).”
With respect to the additional elements operating in a non-conventional and non-generic way and reflecting an improvement to a particular technological environment, the cited additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to automating and/or implementing the acts of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions.” The claims are not directed to improving computers or related technologies, but improving the method for “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions.” For potential improvement in an abstract idea “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g., a recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions concept) is not an improvement in technology. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)). Therefore, claim 12 is non-statutory.
Claim 19 also recites the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”, as well as the additional elements of “an electronic ledger platform”, “a first cryptographic token”, “an issuing system”, “a block”, “an admission system”, “point of sale system”, “an electronic ledger”, “a block”, “a computer-implemented system”, “at least one programmable processor”, and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to automating and/or implementing the acts of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one programmable processor” and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Finally, Examiner notes the basis of the rejection is Alice, by applying the subject matter eligibility analysis and flowchart according to MPEP § 2106. And, based on this standard, the claims are non-statutory, and correctly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action dated March 06, 2025, Applicant has adequately amended and/or arguments are persuasive to overcome the current record of art and render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 moot. The cited references of record do not disclose, suggest, and/or teach each and every feature of the claimed invention. Examiner hereby rescinds the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation – Intended Use
Regarding claim 12, Examiner notes that the following limitation: “wherein the ownership of the first cryptographic demand token is transferable …” is an intended use of “the first cryptographic demand token” and therefore carries limited patentable weight. Additionally, similar language is recited in claim 19. (MPEP § 2103 I C).
Claim Interpretation – Not Positively Recited
In regards to claim 12, Examiner notes that the following limitations are not positively recited in the claim, and therefore carries limited patentable weight: claim 12: “wherein the admission token is generated ...; … wherein the admission token is redeemed, …” which are not positively recited. (“A claim is only limited by positively recited elements …” (MPEP § 2115, see also In re Wilder, 166 USPQ 545 (C.C.P.A. 1970)).
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 12-14, 18-19, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 12-14, 18, and 27-28 are directed to “a method”, and claims 19 and 23-26 are directed to “a system”. Therefore, these claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 12 recites “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”, which is a form of commercial or legal interactions (i.e., organizing human activity), and therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “issuing, …, a first cryptographic demand token by writing the first cryptographic demand token”; “transmitting, …, an indication to convert the first cryptographic demand token to an admission token”; “the first cryptographic demand token including ownership information and activity information, the ownership information indicating that the first cryptographic demand token is owned by the first entity and the activity information indicating a first activity associated with admission of a holder of the admission token to an event”; “wherein the ownership of the first cryptographic demand token is transferable from the first entity to other entities … in accordance with a first protocol for verifying the ownership information and validating a corresponding transaction for the transfer of the first cryptographic demand token”; “wherein the admission token is generated … in compliance with one or more rules, the admission token associated with admission information for the holder of the admission token, the admission information comprising data usable … to validate the admission token”; “receiving an indication authorized by the second entity to transfer, using the first protocol, the first cryptographic demand token to a third entity in consideration for a third quantity of currency transferred from the third entity to the second entity”; “the first cryptographic demand token associated with a second quantity of currency provided to the first entity in consideration for transfer of the first cryptographic demand token from the first entity to the second entity at a time prior to the transfer of the cryptographic demand token from the second entity to the third entity, and the first cryptographic demand token further associated with a reference to at least a first cryptographic program, the first cryptographic demand token representing ownership information about an asset associated with an event”; “wherein the admission token is redeemed, …, wherein redemption of the admission token comprises validation, …, of the admission token, thereby validating the admission of the holder of the admission token to the event”; “committing, to one or more records … in accordance with the first protocol, data associated with: the transfer of the first cryptographic demand token to the third entity”; “a transfer of a first portion of the third quantity of currency to the first entity, wherein the first portion is determined based on the third quantity of currency and the second quantity of currency”; and “a transfer of a second portion of the third quantity of currency to the second entity”. (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.1.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP §2106.04 II.A.2.), the additional elements of the claim such as “an electronic ledger platform”, “an issuing system”, “a block”, “an admission system”, “point of sale system”, “an electronic ledger”, “executable program”, and “a system”, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to automating and/or implementing the acts of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions” using computer technology (e.g., “an issuing system” and “an electronic ledger platform”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 12 is non-statutory
Claim 19 also recites the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”, as well as the additional elements of “an electronic ledger platform”, “an issuing system”, “a block”, “an admission system”, “point of sale system”, “an electronic ledger”, “a block”, “a computer-implemented system”, “at least one programmable processor”, and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”, which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to automating and/or implementing the acts of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions.”
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.05 I.A.), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claim merely describe the concept of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions” using computer technology (e.g., “at least one programmable processor” and “a non-transitory machine-readable medium”). Therefore, the use of these additional elements do no more than employ a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. (MPEP 2106.05 I A (f) & (h)). Therefore, claim 19 is non-statutory.
Dependent claim 13 further describes the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the first value is assigned by the first entity.”
Dependent claim 14 further describes the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”. Specifically, it recites “…, wherein the one or more records of the … further include: a transfer of a third portion of the third quantity of currency to a fourth entity, in response to ...” The additional elements of “executing a second executable program”, “the electronic ledger” and “in response to execution of the second executable program”, do no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as they do no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, they do not improve the functioning of the computer or the functioning of another technology or technical field.
Dependent claim 18 further describes the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein a percentage of a difference between the second quantity of currency and the third quantity of currency is transferred to the first entity.”
Dependent claim 23 further describes the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the first portion of the purchase value is transferred to the originating entity.”
Dependent claim 24 further describes the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the second portion of the purchase value is transferred to the reseller.”
Dependent claim 25 further describes the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein the originating entity determines the first portion according to a percentage value.”
Dependent claim 26 further describes the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein value of the first portion of the purchase value is equal to or less than a first threshold, in response to determining that the purchase value is less than a second threshold.”
Dependent claim 27 further describes the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”. Specifically, it recites “… wherein status of the third entity with respect to attending the event is determined based on whether the third entity has converted the first the first cryptographic demand token to the admission token.”
Dependent claim 28 further describes the abstract idea of “recording ownership of assets and carrying out transactions”. Specifically, it recites “… comprising validating, by the event provider’s …, the admission token, thereby validating the admission of the holder of the admission token to the event.” The additional element of “point of sale system” does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. And, as it does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, it does not improve the functioning of the computer or computer technology.
Hence, claims 12-14, 18-19, and 23-28 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Purohit et al (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200380825 A1) – Ticketing Systems On A Distributed Ledger
Purohit recites a blockchain system for providing ticketing within a block-chain network of participating electronic devices includes an electronic gaming machine (EGM) configured to participate in the blockchain network. The EGM a memory storing a local blockchain and a system blockchain. The EGM also includes at least one processor configured to execute instruc-tions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to identify a first ticket creation blockchain transaction in the local blockchain from a ticket creation device of the first plurality of electronic gaming devices, the first ticket creation blockchain transaction including at least a ticket value and a ticket identifier (ID), create a system ticket creation blockchain transaction including at least the ticket value and the ticket ID, and broadcast the system ticket creation blockchain transaction to the system blockchain. Purohit not used as cited references better disclose the claimed subject matter.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN CHISM whose telephone number is (571) 272-5915. The examiner can normally be reached during 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM Monday – Thursday, 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, Calvin L. Hewitt II can be reached (571) 272-6709. 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.
/STEVEN R CHISM/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/CALVIN L HEWITT II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights