DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on May 11, 2026.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues that “[c]laims 1 and 11 as amended integrate a practical application with a specific technological implementation. Claims 1 and 11 as amended recite concrete computer-technical operations that control access to encrypted, containerized content using blockchain-verified usage conditions. Claims 1 and 11 as amended recite wallet-based authentication of a content-access request (Dapp + wallet plugin). Claims 1 and 11 as amended recite encrypted containerization of digital items (e.g., ORC container) with decryption credentials retrieved from the UT-NFT. Claims 1 and 11 as amended recite on-chain verification in which "usage reports" (who/what/where/when) are satisfied before decryption. Claims 1 and 11 as amended recite atomic recording of the access as a blockchain transaction and automatic payment split by smart contract.” Remarks at 8-9. While the claims recite technology, Applicant has not shown that these technological features have been improved. For example, Applicant has not shown that the Specification describes a technological improvement that is reflected in the claims. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Instead, the system and technology are being used to allegedly improve the business process.
As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-10, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claims 11-20, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite additional elements in bold and abstract idea in regular text:
1. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory comprising a decentralized web application (Dapp), wherein the one or more processors are configured by the Dapp to:
receive one or more digital items from one or more licensors;
generate, via a secure library generator integrated with a blockchain, a usage-tracking, non-fungible token (UT-NFT) according to the one or more digital items from one or more licensors, wherein the UT-NFT is programmed with encrypted data unique to the digital items and the licensor;
store the UT-NFT on a decentralized blockchain ledger to prevent tampering or unauthorized access;
dynamically generate, via a contract generator of the Dapp, a blockchain-based smart contract that securely computes a relevancy score associated with the UT-NFT, usage reports associated with the UT-NFT, and a license fee associated with the UT-NFT, wherein the smart contract ensures that usage data is updated in real-time and verified across the network;
program the usage reports into the UT-NFT, wherein the usage reports relate to data associated with a use of the one or more digital items associated with the UT-NFT and comprise one or more of:
what device can access the one or more digital items,
where the one or more digital items can be accessed, and
when the one or more digital items can be accessed, wherein the usage reports are updated and recorded on the blockchain for secure and immutable tracking of access rights;
authenticate, via a wallet plugin, a request to access a container that holds the digital items;
retrieve, from the UT-NFT, decryption credentials for an encrypted content container stored in a local cache or distributed content store;
verify on-chain, via the smart contract, that the usage reports are satisfied;
verify on-chain, via the smart contract, that the wallet plugin stores a valid UT-NFT associated with the encrypted content container; and
only upon successful verification, decrypt the container to enable access to encrypted content within the encrypted content container, while recording the access transaction on the blockchain and effecting payment splits specified by the smart contract, wherein failure of the verification prevents decryption of the encrypted content container.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the system comprises a wallet associated with the library generator, and
the wallet is configured to record details associated with an access to the one or more digital items via the UT-NFT.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more digital items comprise one or more pieces of information and at least one additional digital item, and
the library generator is configured to generate a different UT-NFT according to a subset of the one or more pieces of information and the at least one additional digital item.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more digital items comprise an artificial intelligence (AI) model that uses one or more pieces of information.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the system comprises a self-service portal configured to generate one or more non-fungible tokens (NFTs) according to the one or more pieces of information, and
the library generator is configured to generate the UT-NFT according to the one or more NFTs.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the library generator is operable to generate and store a plurality of UT-NFTs according to a plurality of articles, and
the one or more digital items are selected, from among the plurality of articles, by a customer.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the usage reports specify a wallet of at least one of the one or more licensors.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the dynamically generated relevancy score is derived according to: how often the one or more digital items have been accessed, and/or how often the one or more digital items are expected to be accessed in the future.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the license fee is determined according to the relevancy score and the usage reports
wherein the usage reports comprise one or more of: who can access the one or more digital items, and why the one or more digital items are being accessed.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein:
a license fee is paid, via a cryptocurrency, to the one or more licensors, wherein each of the one or more licensors are paid according to a predetermined share of the license fee.
11. A method implemented via one or more computers, comprising:
using a decentralized web application (Dapp), wherein one or more processors are configured by the Dapp for:
receiving one or more digital items from one or more licensors;
generating a usage-tracking, non-fungible token (UT-NFT) according to one or more digital items from one or more licensors;
dynamically generating, for the UT-NFT, a relevancy score, usage reports and a license fee;
programming the usage reports into the UT-NFT, wherein the usage reports relate to data associated with a use of the one or more digital items associated with the UT-NFT and comprise one or more of:
what device can access the one or more digital items,
where the one or more digital items can be accessed, and
when the one or more digital items can be accessed;
authenticating, via a wallet plugin, a request to access an encrypted container associated with the UT-NFT;
obtaining, from the UT-NFT, decryption credentials for an encrypted content container stored in a local cache or distributed content store;
verifying, on-chain, compliance with the usage reports via the smart contract; and
verifying that the wallet plugin stores a valid UT-NFT associated with the encrypted content container; and
responsive to the verification, decrypting the container to enable access to encrypted content within the encrypted content container and recording the access as a blockchain transaction that triggers smart-contract payment splitting, wherein failed verification prevents decryption of the encrypted content container.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the method comprises:
maintaining a record of details associated with an access to the one or more digital items via the UT-NFT.
13. The method of claim 11, wherein:
the one or more digital items comprise one or more articles and at least one additional digital item, and
the method comprises generating a different UT-NFT according to a subset of the one or more articles and the at least one additional digital item.
14. The method of claim 11, wherein:
the one or more digital items comprise an artificial intelligence (AI) model that uses one or more articles.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein the method comprises:
generating one or more non-fungible tokens (NFTs) according to the one or more articles, and
generating the UT-NFT according to the one or more NFTs.
16. The method of claim 11, wherein:
the one or more digital items are selected, from among a plurality of digital items, by a customer.
17. The method of claim 11, wherein:
the usage reports specify a wallet of at least one of the one or more licensors.
18. The method of claim 11, wherein the method comprises:
deriving the relevancy score according to: how often the one or more digital items have been accessed, and/or how often the one or more digital items are expected to be accessed in the future.
19. The method of claim 11, wherein the method comprises:
determining the license fee according to the relevancy score and the usage reports,
wherein the usage reports comprise one or more of: who can access the one or more digital items, and why the one or more digital items are being accessed.
20. The method of claim 11, wherein the method comprises:
requiring the license fee to be paid, via a cryptocurrency, to the one or more licensors, wherein each of the one or more licensors are paid according to a predetermined share of the license fee.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to method and system for tracking content so that content producers can be paid and providing access to the content upon verification. This type of method of organizing human activity is similar to a fundamental economic practice such as a payment, or a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities or behaviors, or business relations. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use known computing technology as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea using generic computers or devices is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is merely being linked to a particular technological environment, i.e., blockchain. Employing well known technology within a blockchain environment to execute the abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to this environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Although individual claimed features and concepts were found in the art, the independent claims as a whole are not obvious in light of the prior art.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Hung, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0337414 A2. Hung teaches a multi-tier encryption NFT system.
Leung et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0209116 A1. Leung reference teaches the integration of platforms for multi-platform content access. Specifically, this reference teaches that access to content may be “timed so that access to the information expires after a predetermined time.” See paragraph 0020.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights