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 the Claims
Claims 1-13, 16-21, 24, 25, and 28 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1, 9, 17, and 28 are amended.
Claims 1-13, 16-21, 24, 25, and 28 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Dec. 29, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because the certain limitations in the claim cannot be performed by a human. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds other limitations in the claim recite the abstract idea (i.e., following rules or instructions). Please see below for the complete analysis of the claim limitations.
Second, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claims reflect an improvement because the claims ensure only verifiable records are committed and solve the problem of unverified or fraudulent transaction data, citing Example 42. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because an improvement in an abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG). That is, ensuring the accuracy information of being stored in association with a property reflects an improvement in an abstract idea (e.g., ensuring information about provided products and service are reliable) and does not reflect an improvement in a technology.
Third, Applicant asserts the use API verified keys, distributed ledger write controls and multimedia content analysis bind the data to a specific technological field. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a link to a technological field does not necessarily reflect a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Fourth, Applicant asserts the additional elements are not well understood, routine or conventional. Applicant respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the additional elements were not rejected as well understood, routine or conventional.
Accordingly the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejection of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn because the cited references do not teach all the newly amended limitations. Please see below for the Examiner notes on the withdrawal of the 103 rejections.
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 1-13, 16-21, 24, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-8, 25 and 28 are directed to a process; and claims 9-13, 16-21, and 24 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims recite an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized)1:
…at a first device comprising a first processor, the first device integrated with an online service marketplace:
linking the online service marketplace with the distributed electronic ledger via an application programming interface (API) with a verified API key;
detecting an event occurring on the online service marketplace, the event indicating a first service completed for the property or a first product purchased for the property;
generating, responsive to detecting the event, a first request to add a first item to the distributed ledger, the first item related to the first service completed or the first product purchased for the property, the first item comprising first item data; and
transmitting, to a second device having a second processor, the first request to add the first item to the distributed ledger based on the event occurring on the online market place;
at the second device comprising the second processor:
receiving, from the first device, the first request to add the first item to the distributed electronic ledger;
determining that the first item is authorized to be added to the distributed electronic ledger including:
determining a first source of the first request to add the first item to the distributed electronic ledger,
determining, by accessing a stored property record permissions structure on the distributed electronic ledger, that the first source of the first request has explicit permission to write to the distributed electronic ledger;
responsive to determining that the first item is authorized to be added to the distributed electronic ledger, causing the first item data to be added to the distributed electronic ledger;
further at the first device: detecting, from the online service marketplace, an action by a buyer of a second service performed or second product purchased for the property was performed on the online service marketplace, the action comprising a submitted review including one or more digital media files evidencing completion of the second service or receipt of the second product;
generating, responsive to detecting the action performed on the online service marketplace, a second request to add a second item to the distributed electronic ledger, the second item related to the second service performed or the second product purchased for the property;
transmitting, to the second device, the second request to add the second item to the distributed electronic ledger based on detecting the action by the buyer performed on the online service marketplace
further at the second device: receiving the second request to add the second item to the distributed electronic ledger,
determining that the second item is authorized to be added to the distributed electronic ledger including:
determining a second source of the second request to add the second item to the distributed electronic ledger,
determining that the second source of the second request does not have explicit permission to write to the distributed electronic ledger,
executing an automated verification process on the one or more digital media files, the automated verification process comprising: identifying the one or more digital media files associated with the review submitted by the buyer converting digital media data associated with the one or more digital media files to a computer-readable format by: (1) extracting and analyzing metadata from the one or more digital media files, (2) performing image recognition of a depicted object or installed product in the one or more digital media files, and (3) analyzing text of the review;
identifying, from the converted digital media data, a date, time, and geolocation of the one or more digital media files, the object or installed product corresponding to the one or more digital media files, and a sentiment of the review comparing the date, time, and geolocation of the one or more digital media files to an expected service parameter to confirm the date, time, and geolocation match the expected service parameter;
comparing the identified object or installed product with a claimed model or type in the request data to confirm the identified object or installed product matches the claimed model or type in the request data; and
determining the sentiment of the review is a positive sentiment that corresponds to a positive confirmation of an accuracy of the second service or second product,
determining, based on the automated verification process, that the second item data is accurate; and
responsive to the accuracy determination, causing the second item and a corresponding generated cryptographic content identifier (CID) data to be added to the distributed electronic ledger.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. following rules or instructions) because these limitations encompass following rules or instructions for allowing access and permissions to information and verifying the information being added. That is, these limitations encompass essentially encompass access control for accessing and editing information about a building (e.g., a house), which is an abstract idea (e.g., verifying and controlling access to the house’s records). Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The independent claims recite additional elements in the limitations (emphasized):
…at a first device comprising a first processor, the first device integrated with an online service marketplace:
linking the online service marketplace with the distributed electronic ledger via an application programming interface (API) with a verified API key;
detecting an event occurring on the online service marketplace, the event indicating a first service completed for the property or a first product purchased for the property;
generating, responsive to detecting the event, a first request to add a first item to the distributed ledger, the first item related to the first service completed or the first product purchased for the property, the first item comprising first item data; and
transmitting, to a second device having a second processor, the first request to add the first item to the distributed ledger based on the event occurring on the online market place;
at the second device comprising the second processor:
receiving, from the first device, the first request to add the first item to the distributed electronic ledger;
determining that the first item is authorized to be added to the distributed electronic ledger including:
determining a first source of the first request to add the first item to the distributed electronic ledger,
determining, by accessing a stored property record permissions structure on the distributed electronic ledger, that the first source of the first request has explicit permission to write to the distributed electronic ledger;
responsive to determining that the first item is authorized to be added to the distributed electronic ledger, causing the first item data to be added to the distributed electronic ledger;
further at the first device: detecting, from the online service marketplace, an action by a buyer of a second service performed or second product purchased for the property was performed on the online service marketplace, the action comprising a submitted review including one or more digital media files evidencing completion of the second service or receipt of the second product;
generating, responsive to detecting the action performed on the online service marketplace, a second request to add a second item to the distributed electronic ledger, the second item related to the second service performed or the second product purchased for the property;
transmitting, to the second device, the second request to add the second item to the distributed electronic ledger based on detecting the action by the buyer performed on the online service marketplace
further at the second device: receiving the second request to add the second item to the distributed electronic ledger,
determining that the second item is authorized to be added to the distributed electronic ledger including:
determining a second source of the second request to add the second item to the distributed electronic ledger,
determining that the second source of the second request does not have explicit permission to write to the distributed electronic ledger,
executing an automated verification process on the one or more digital media files, the automated verification process comprising: identifying the one or more digital media files associated with the review submitted by the buyer converting digital media data associated with the one or more digital media files to a computer-readable format by: (1) extracting and analyzing metadata from the one or more digital media files, (2) performing image recognition of a depicted object or installed product in the one or more digital media files, and (3) analyzing text of the review;
identifying, from the converted digital media data, a date, time, and geolocation of the one or more digital media files, the object or installed product corresponding to the one or more digital media files, and a sentiment of the review comparing the date, time, and geolocation of the one or more digital media files to an expected service parameter to confirm the date, time, and geolocation match the expected service parameter;
comparing the identified object or installed product with a claimed model or type in the request data to confirm the identified object or installed product matches the claimed model or type in the request data; and
determining the sentiment of the review is a positive sentiment that corresponds to a positive confirmation of an accuracy of the second service or second product,
determining, based on the automated verification process, that the second item data is accurate; and
responsive to the accuracy determination, causing the second item and a corresponding generated cryptographic content identifier (CID) data to be added to the distributed electronic ledger.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the first and second devices with processors generating, transmitting and receiving first and second requests to add items and receiving the notification, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving data (i.e. generic computers sending and receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of the online marketplace linked to a blockchain, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (blockchain based e-commerce) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of using an API key and a generated cryptographic content identifier (CID), when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cryptographic techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Fourth, the additional elements of adding the items after determining if the item is authorized, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only restricting public access which is no more than insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g) (discussing Ultramercial).
Fifth, the additional elements of adding the authorized items to the blockchain, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (adding authorized data to a blockchain) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Sixth, the additional elements of the automated verification process including extracting and analyzing meta data and text and image recognition, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., image analysis) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Seventh, claims 9 and 17 further recite the additional elements of a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium that provides instructions. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of adding the items after determining if the item is authorized is insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activity, and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the following reasons.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 recite similar steps as the independent claims but adding items that are not authorized with a marking that the items are not authorized. These claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims for similar reasons (i.e. access control). Similarly, these claims recite similar additional elements as the independent claims (i.e. receiving requests and storing data in blockchain) which do not reflect an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 recite a second abstract idea, a mental process, because the steps of tracking an expiration date relative to a current data encompass observation and evaluation. Further, Examiner finds the presence of these two abstract ideas does not render the claims non-abstract, see MPEP 2106.04.I discussing Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (stating combining “one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”).
Claims 3, 11, and 19 further recite the additional elements transmitting a notification. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data (i.e. sending text), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 20 and 21 recite a second abstract idea, a mental process, because the steps of determining if a recall has been made or determining recommended actions based on a model or serial number encompass observation and evaluation. Further, Examiner finds the presence of these two abstract ideas does not render the claims non-abstract, see MPEP 2106.04.I discussing Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (stating combining “one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”).
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 20 and 21 further recite the additional elements transmitting a notification. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data (i.e. sending text), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claims 6 and 7 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because requesting data be added and verifying the information based on service provided, as claimed, is a part of following rules or instructions (i.e. maintaining accurate and current records).
Claims 8, 16, and 24 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because verifying content is accurate is a part of access control (i.e. controlling access includes reviewing the accuracy of the data being controlled).
Claims 25 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because verifying based on confirming matching dates, times, and locations, as claimed, is a part of following rules or instructions (i.e. maintaining accurate and current records).
Claims 28 recites the additional elements of using an API key for the verification. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cryptographic techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Conclusion
The claims are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103 for the following reasons. The close prior art is: Owens et al, WO 2022/245663 A1, herein referred to as “Owens”, in view of Killoran et al, US Pub. No. 2020/0296082, herein referred to as “Killoran”, further in view of Lev-Ami et al, US Pub. No. 2021/0224357, herein referred to as “Lev-Ami”, further in view of Howe et al, US Pub. No. 2017/0270650, herein referred to as “Howe”, in view of Vasquez et al., US Pat. No. 10,121,112, herein referred to as “Vasquez”.
Owens teaches verified information about buildings, ¶[0061], [00117]-[00119], and adding the data to a new block in the blockchain, e.g., ¶¶[0065]-[0066]. Killoran teachers an commerce system accessing blockchain ledger, e.g., ¶[0233] and Figs. 1 and 14A. Lev-Ami teaches using an API key as authentication mechanism, ¶[0026]. Howe teaches receiving and analyzing images to verify property information, e.g., ¶¶[0035], [0046], using image recognition, e.g., ¶¶[0035], [0047] and analyzing text of commentary about the property, ¶¶[0040], [0067]. Vasquez teaches using image recognition to verify the model number of installed products matches the purchase orders, Col. 40, l. 17 – Col. 41, l. 7).
It is clear from the teachings of Owens, Killoran, Lev-Ami, Howe and Vasquez that the prior art does not consider the combination of elements claimed in the independent claims, particularly:
…executing an automated verification process on the one or more digital media files, the automated verification process comprising: identifying the one or more digital media files associated with the review submitted by the buyer converting digital media data associated with the one or more digital media files to a computer-readable format by:
(1) extracting and analyzing metadata from the one or more digital media files, (2) performing image recognition of a depicted object or installed product in the one or more digital media files, and (3) analyzing text of the review;
identifying, from the converted digital media data, a date, time, and geolocation of the one or more digital media files, the object or installed product corresponding to the one or more digital media files, and a sentiment of the review comparing the date, time, and geolocation of the one or more digital media files to an expected service parameter to confirm the date, time, and geolocation match the expected service parameter;
comparing the identified object or installed product with a claimed model or type in the request data to confirm the identified object or installed product matches the claimed model or type in the request data; and determining the sentiment of the review is a positive sentiment that corresponds to a positive confirmation of an accuracy of the second service or second product…
As commonly recited in the independent claims. Accordingly, the claims are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Examiner notes the exact language of claims 1, 9, and 17 varies but does not find these differences significantly alter the eligibility analysis and analyses the claims concurrently here for the sake of brevity.
Prosecution Insights