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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 10, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 10, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 12. Applicant has cancelled claims 2, 9-10, 13 and 20-21. Claim 15 was previously cancelled. Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, 14, and 16-19 are now pending, have been examined and currently stand rejected.
Claim Interpretation
Contingent Limitations
Regarding claim 12: The portion which recites “when the ownership of the tag token by…, emitting, by a tagging smart contract corresponding with the blockchain…”, is conditional language that not necessarily will happen since in these claims, the emitting step is not required (e.g., it is only required “when the ownership of the tag token… is stored to the blockchain”). MPEP 2111.04 II
See MPEP 2111.04 II. “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, 14, and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “provide a query language for APls to access databases to query blockchain data on the blockchain, wherein the blockchain data is stored in a token data store…”. Examiner has reviewed Applicant disclosure and was unable to find support for this limitation. For examiner, Specification [0038] disclose “Smart contract engine 110 may electronically communicate with graphing engine 124, which may provide a query language for AP ls to access databases to query the blockchain data.” However, the Applicant’s disclosure fails to describe the algorithm of how this function/step is performed.
Similarly, claim 12 recites, in part, “provide a query language for APls to access databases to query blockchain data on the blockchain, wherein the blockchain data is stored in a token data store…”. Examiner has reviewed Applicant disclosure and was unable to find support for this limitation. For examiner, Specification [0038] disclose “Smart contract engine 110 may electronically communicate with graphing engine 124, which may provide a query language for AP ls to access databases to query the blockchain data.” However, the Applicant’s disclosure fails to describe the algorithm of how this function/step is performed.
See MPEP. 2161.01: Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
Claims 3-8, 11, 14, and 16-19 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) at least for their dependence to claims 1 and 12.
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 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03.
Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 12, 14 and 16-19). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106.
Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 12 is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application. Claim 12 recites:
A computer-implemented method for generating, storing, and managing cryptographic non-fungible tokens (NFTs) by a decentralized, computer implemented system, the cryptographic NFTs representing unique hashtag strings, linking the tokens to an addressable digital asset, and displaying content tagged with a unique hashtag string, via an application programming interface (API), on different publisher computer platforms, the method comprising:
determining, by the computer processor, upon electronically receiving a request to
generate a token for a first hashtag string from a first user, if a tag token exists for the first hashtag string;
upon determining that no tag token exists for the first hashtag string, generating, by a minting process, a tag token as cryptographic NFT, wherein:
the tag token represents the first tag string,
the tag token is a digital representation of the first tag string stored as the cryptographic NFT on a blockchain,
the tag token links an electronically addressable content item, stored on a first third party platform to the first hashtag string,
the first hashtag string is enabled to be re-used for subsequent tagging of multiple electronically addressable content items, and
recording the tag token on the blockchain exposes the first hashtag string via public APls;
recording, on the blockchain, ownership of the tag token by a digital wallet associated with the first user;
receiving from a second user via a second third party platform a request to link the first hashtag string represented by the tag token, with a content item, wherein the content item is stored at a local data store of the second third party platform;
in response to the request to link the first hashtag string with the content item, link the tag token, corresponding to the first hashtag string, to the content item and the link between the tag token and the content item in a decentralized datastore accessible for retrieval by a plurality of third party platforms via the public APIs; and
receive a search request for the first hashtag string via a third party platform; and
responsive to the search request for the first hashtag string, access the link to the tag token from the decentralized data store and provide, to the third third party platform, a search result that comprises the first hashtag string, the tag token associated with the first hashtag string, and a reference to the electronically addressable content item, including the content item linked to the tag token, wherein:
the minting process records, to the blockchain, the ownership of the tag token to the first user that is separate from ownership of the third party platform;
providing, by the decentralized, computer-implemented system, a query language for APls to access databases to query blockchain data on the blockchain, wherein the blockchain data is stored in token data store;
when the ownership of the tag token by the digital wallet associated with the first user is stored to the blockchain, emitting, by a tagging smart contract corresponding with the blockchain, a minting event or tagging event containing transaction data associated with the tag token, and
wherein a tagging smart contract is configured for a target to be tagged with a plurality of Tag Tokens.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of facilitating, managing and limiting ownership of digital content through unique tags or strings and providing search result in response to a search request and providing a language. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes commercial or legal interaction (e.g., the system first examines whether the data exists, If it does not the system creates said data and records the ownership of this data). Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use 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.
As indicated in the “Claim Interpretation” section seen above, the portion of the limitation which recites “when the ownership of the tag token by…, emitting, by a tagging smart contract corresponding with the blockchain…”,” is no required by the claim.
Beyond this language, claim 12 recites the additional element of, Independent claim 12 recites NFTs, API, computer processor, blockchain, digital wallet, third party platforms and smart contracts. These additional elements are all recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, or a portion thereof, using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims use of NFTs, API, computer processor, blockchain, digital wallet, third party platforms and smart contracts does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application because the claims do not require any nonconventional computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for the performance of the abstract idea on a generic computing/processing device. Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use of NFTs, API, computer processor, blockchain, digital wallet, third party platforms and smart contracts in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of the processor, memory, another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the 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. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract.
When analyzed under step 2B, 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 element of using a generic computing component (e.g., of NFTs, API, computer processor, blockchain, digital wallet, third party platforms and smart contracts) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
Therefore, claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 14 and 16-19 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 further refine the abstract idea by utilizing, a shared token data store and shared graphing engine. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 further refine the abstract idea by linking content item to the tag token and data is added to the blockchain. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 further refine the abstract idea by indicating the first user corresponds with a safe listed publisher address that is authorized to mint the tag token. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 further refine the abstract idea by providing a search tool. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 further refine the abstract idea by receiving and reviewing subcontracts at an API. This claim fails to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Claims 12, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blevins (U.S. Publication 2022/0027992), hereinafter “Blevins” in view of Basu et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0005493 A1), hereinafter “Basu”.
Regarding claim 12: Blevins disclose:
Claim 12: A computer-implemented method for generating, storing, and managing cryptographic non-fungible tokens (NFTs) by a decentralized, computer-implemented system, the cryptographic NFTs representing unique hashtag strings, linking the tokens to an addressable digital asset, and displaying content tagged with a unique hashtag string, via an application programming interface (API), on different publisher computer platforms, the method comprising:
a computer processor programmed with computer instructions which when executed
cause the computer processor to: (See at least Blevins [0008], [0009], Fig 4, [0100]). Where Blevins discloses a computer processor (i.e. one or more processors).
the tag token represents the first hashtag string; (See at least Blevins, [0020]; [0037]; [0093])
wherein the tag token is a digital representation of the first hashtag string stored as the cryptographic NFT on a blockchain, (See at least Blevins, [0020]; [0037]; [0093]. Where the tag token (i.e. tree token) is a digital representation of the first hashtag string (i.e. representing a tree of collection of trees).)
the tag token links an electronically addressable content item stored on a first third party platform to the first hashtag string, (See at least Blevins, [0020]; [0029]; [0039]; [0043-0046]; [0052-0053]. the tag token links an electronically addressable content item (i.e. one or more pictures) on a first third party platform to the first hashtag string, (i.e. tree token platform may interact with decentralized applications like Ethereum and Hyperledger, and the tokenization service is implemented though a smart contract on the platform. The tree tokens can be accessed through mobile or web applications).)
the first hashtag string is enabled to be re-used for subsequent tagging of multiple electronically addressable content items, and (See at least Blevins, [0025] i.e., the first hashtag string (i.e. a tree) is enabled to be reused (e.g., could represent virtual fractional ownership and multiple users could sell and trade a tree/tree token) for subsequent tagging of multiple electronically addressable content items (i.e. one or more pictures).)
recording the first hashtag string on the blockchain exposes the first hashtag string via public APls; (See at least Blevins, [0024]; [0074]; [0076]; [0084].)
record, on the blockchain, ownership of the tag token by a digital wallet associated with the first user; (See at least Blevins, [0020]. May be issued to a wallet address of a user)
receive, from a second user via a second third party platform, a request to link the first hashtag string represented by the tag token with a content item; (See at least Blevins [0020]; [0029]; [0039]; [0043];[0045-0046]; [0048]; [0052]; Fig. 2 item 202]. Where a request to link a hashtag string (i.e. link a tree or collection of trees) represented by a tag token (i.e. represented by a tree token/NFT) with a content item (e.g., a picture, and/or a description of the tree) is received (e.g., received during the request to store a tree record) note: a user may upload a tree data from another service, such cloud storage or another server that hosts records of trees (e.g., receives request from user via second third party platforms) .)
wherein the content item is stored at a local data store of the second third party platform; (See at least Blevins, [0043] the tree can be imported from a file or another service)
in response to the request to link the first hashtag string with the content item, link the tag token, corresponding to the first hashtag string, to the content item and ; (See at least Blevins, [0043])
store the link between the tag token and the content item in a decentralized datastore accessible for retrieval by a plurality of party platform via public APIs; and (See at least Blevins [0020]; [0027]; [0029-0030]; [0052]. Where a link between the tag token (i.e. tree token/NFT) and the content item (e.g., picture and/or description of the tree) is stored in a decentralized datastore (i.e. data store, e.g., a decentralized data store) accessible for retrieval by third party platforms (i.e. note that a GUI is available for searching and viewing of tree information).)
receive a search request for the first hashtag string via a third party platform; and (See at least Blevins, [0020]; [0027]; [0029-0030]; [0046]; [0052].)
responsive to the search request for the first hashtag string, access the link to the tag token from the decentralized data store (See at least Blevins, [0060])
and provide, to the third party platform, a search result that comprises the first hashtag string, the tag token associated with the first hashtag string, and a reference to the electronically addressable content item, including the content item, linked to the tag token. (See at least Blevins, [0020]; [0027]; [0029-0030]; [0046]; [0052]; [0060]. Search request for the first hashtag string (i.e. for a tree) is received, accessing the link to the tag token and providing, to the third party platform, a search result that comprises the first hashtag string (i.e. tree) the tag token associated (i.e. tree token/NFT) associated with the first hashtag string, and a reference to the electronically addressable content (e.g., to the one or more pictures) item linked to the tag token (i.e. linked to the tree token/NFT).)
wherein:
the minting process records, to the blockchain, the ownership of the tag token to the first user that is separate from ownership of the third party platform. (See at least Blevins, [0020]; [0025]; [0065]) when the ownership of the tag token by the digital wallet associated with the first user is stored to the blockchain, emitting, by a tagging smart contract corresponding with the blockchain, a minting event or tagging event containing transaction data associated with the tag token, and wherein a tagging smart contract is configured for a target to be tagged with a plurality of Tag Tokens. (See at least Blevins [0025]; [0065]. Where the ownership of the tag token (i.e. fungible carbon-credit tokens) by the digital wallet associated with the first user (i.e. wallet accounts of owners of tree tokens) is stored to the blockchain,(i.e. stored in the blockchain-based data repository) a smart contract (i.e. encoded in a smart contract) corresponding with the blockchain emits a minting event or tagging event (i.e. tokens may be minted and added to wallet accounts) containing transaction data associated with the tag token (i.e. computation of carbon credit and transaction data) and wherein a tagging smart contract is configured for a target to be tagged with a plurality of Tag Tokens (e.g., Some aspects of the disclosed embodiments include the use of NFTs to represent virtual fractional ownership of a single tree, for example, multiple users may
have a stake in a tree token ( e.g., stakes of different users in a tree token may be recorded in one or more records of the data store by a smart contract.)
wherein the blockchain data is stored in token data store. (See at least Blevins [0029]). Where blockchain data (i.e. transaction data) may be store in a token data store (i.e. blockchain based data repository which is a decentralized data store).
Blevins discloses receiving a request to generate a token for a first hashtag string from a first user. Blevins also discloses generate a tag token comprising a cryptographic NFT and representing the first hashtag string. Blevins further discloses generates a tree token if the tree owner has indicated in the tree listing their acceptance to participate in the adopt-a-tree program. Blevins [0053]. Blevins further disclose tokens generation by a minting process. Blevins , [0062].
However, Blevins does not explicitly disclose: determining, by the computer processor, upon electronically receiving a request to generate a token if a tag token exists for the first hashtag string; upon determining that no tag token exists for the first hashtag string, generate a tag token.
Basu, on the other hand, teaches:
determine, by the computer processor, upon electronically receiving a request to generate, a token if a tag token exists for the first hashtag string; (See at least Basu [0062]; Fig. 4). Where the processor (i.e. processor 401) determines, upon electronically receiving a request to generate a token (i.e. in response to processing a request for a token), if a tag token (i.e. token) exists for the hashtag string (i.e. exist for the sensitive information). and
upon determining that no tag token exists for the first hashtag string, generate a tag token. (See at least Basu [0062]). Where, upon determining that no tag token exists for the hashtag string (i.e. no token exists for the sensitive information) generate a tag token (i.e. generate a token).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blevins’ system that generates a token in response to a request, to include the teachings of Basu, in order to avoid generating a duplicate token if one already exists.
The combination of Blevins and Basu do not explicitly disclose, however, Ardhan teaches providing, by the decentralized, computer-implemented system, a query language for APls to access databases to query blockchain data on the blockchain. (See at least Ardhan [0230]). Where a graphing engine (i.e. program) is configured to provide a query language (i.e. queries) for APIs (i.e. via API) to access databases to query blockchain data on the blockchain (i.e. information retrieval).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blevin’s system of token generation to include a graphing engine (i.e. program) to provide a query language for API to access databases within the blockchain in order to develop improved techniques for retrieving information that is responsive to a query.(Ardhan, [0219]).
Applicant is reminded that the portion which recites “for subsequent tagging of multiple electronically addressable content items” is the intended use/result of why the first hashtag string is enabled to be re-used.
Note RE Claim 12:
The limitations of “the tag token is a digital representation of the first hashtag string stored as the cryptographic NFT on a blockchain” is a non-functional descriptive material as the description does not produce functional relationship between the recited computer processor and the description of the tag token.
The limitations of “the tag token links an electronically addressable content item on a first third party platform to the first hashtag string”, “the first hashtag string is enabled to be re-used for subsequent tagging of multiple electronically addressable content items”, and “recording the tag token on the blockchain exposes the first hashtag string via public APIs” are intended use of the tag token, first hashtag string, and recording the first hashtag string respectively and do not move to further limit the scope of the claim is directed to the processor and its functions and the intended use descriptions do not
Examiner has provided prior art, where available, for these intended use and/or non-functional
phrases/limitations, however, these phrases/limitations will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Accordingly, the prior art is only provided in the interest of compact prosecution.
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Blevins, Basu and Ardhan disclose everything in claim 12. The combination further disclose:
utilize a shared token data store and shared graphing engine. (See at least Ardhan [0230]). Where smart contract engine (i.e. information retrieval system) utilize token data store and shared graphing engine (i.e. application).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blevin’s system of token generation to include teaching of Ardhan of using systems/applications to access and interact with data within a system in order to develop improved techniques for retrieving information that is responsive to a query.(Ardhan, [0219])
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Blevins, Basu and Ardhan disclose everything in claim 12. The combination further disclose: when the tag token is generated or the electronically addressable content item is linked to the tag token, add tagged data to the blockchain. (See at least Blevins [0025]. Where tagged data (i.e. tree information) is logged to the blockchain (i.e. written to the blockchain-based data repository).)
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Blevins, Basu and Ardhan disclose everything in claim 12. The combination further disclose: wherein the first user corresponds with a safelisted publisher address that is authorized to mint the tag token. (See at least Blevins [0083]; [0084]. Where the first user corresponds with a safelisted publisher address (i.e. smart contract may perform one or more verifications…where a public key is associated with different user accounts) that is authorized to mint the tag token (i.e. generate a tree token, which may establish an instance of a new, unique token).)
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Blevins, Basu and Ardhan disclose everything in claim 12. The combination further disclose: provide, via a user interface, a search tool for the second user to search for tags and tagged content. (See at least Blevins [0052]. Where a search tool (i.e. for searching) is provided via a user interface (i.e. GUI) for the second user (i.e. a user) to search for tags and tagged content (i.e. tree token).)
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Blevins, Basu and Ardhan disclose everything in claim 12. The combination further disclose; receive one or more target type subcontracts from one or more user devices at an application programming interface (API) of the decentralized computer system; and review and approve the one or more target type subcontracts that comply with one or more predetermined rules. (See at least Blevins [0066]). Where receive one or more target subcontracts (i.e. an address of a smart contract) from one or more user devices (i.e. user accounts) at an (API) of the decentralized computer system; and review and approve the one or more target type subcontracts that comply with one or more predetermined rules. (i.e. the smart contract may perform one or more verifications, such as signature verifications, based on PKI information… The schema may be enforced by the smart contract, such as by rejecting requests with non-conformant inputs, or lacking one or more required inputs, upon failure to verify one or more required cryptographic signatures, or failure to match a cryptographic hash between input data and implicated data (e.g., indicating a discrepancy)).
Prior Art Analysis
The prior art of record does not appear to reasonably disclose the subject matter of the claims. Claims 1, 3-8 and 11 appear to be allowable if rewritten to overcome any pending objections and rejections.
Examiner notes that further search and consideration will be required upon presentation of the rewritten claims. Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
Applicant asserts that the claims "improve the functioning of the computer itself” because as with Enfish and directly stated by the MPEP as cited above. Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to claims 12, 14 and 16-19 the claims recite determining a tag does not exist, recording the tag, link the tag to content item, receiving search request from third parties, providing a query language and tagging transactional data with the tag. The claims recite the abstract idea of facilitating, managing and limiting ownership of digital content through unique tags or strings and providing search result in response to a search request. The claims do not improve the functioning of how the process of tokenization, the computer itself or other technical field.
Regarding claims 1, 3-8 and 11, applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered and were found to be persuasive. Amendment pp. 8-11. Examiner contends that the claims still could be considered to be reciting one or more abstract ideas (e.g., facilitating, managing and limiting ownership of digital content through unique tags or strings and providing search result in response to a search request), the combination of additional elements recited in amended claim 1 integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In view of the current claim amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for claims 1, 3-8 and 11 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant asserts that the limitation "wherein a tagging smart contract is configured for a target to be tagged with a plurality of Tag Tokens" is not found in any of the references. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See Blevins, [0025] Some aspects of the disclosed embodiments include the use of NFTs to represent virtual fractional ownership of a single tree, for example, multiple users may have a stake in a tree token ( e.g., stakes of different users in a tree token may be recorded in one or more records of the data store by a smart contract).
Regarding claims 1, 3-8 and 11 examiner notes that the prior art, taken either individually or in reasonable combination with other prior art, fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagaraja (US 20200244605 A1): In an example where tokens are designed as hashtags, in some embodiments, one hashtag maps to one correspondent service available at platform. In some embodiments, router 224 is configured to process the input sequence and determine whether the received input sequence includes any tokens (e.g., hashtags) recognizable at platform 206, and accessible to the particular requesting user. [0038]; [0061]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights