DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Amendment filed December 12, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 13, 19, and 20 are currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 12, 2025, has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 12, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, regarding independent claims, 1, 13, and 20, as currently amended, recite statutory subject matter. More particularly, applicant argues that the claims are directed to specific improvements in computer (or Blockchain) functionality as in Enfish. (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Note that the claims in the instant case are not in any way similar to Enfish (as the claims do not improve the function of the computer itself by providing “increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements” (Enfish at 1690) but merely serves as to recite a data management process of storing fitness data for entities which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite (in part) "receiving health and fitness information for entities; store the health and fitness information for the entities; and sending a non-fungible token to an entity of the entities in response to a subset of the health and fitness information associated with the entity satisfying a criterion", which is grouped within the "Certain methods of organizing human activity", specifically, "commercial or legal interactions... grouping(s) of abstract ideas because the claims involve data management in prong one of Step 2A (see MPEP 2106).
Applicant further argues, regarding independent claims, 1, 13, and 20, as currently amended, that the claims are integrated into a practical application. More specifically, applicant argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application, particularly in view of DDR Holdings and McRo. (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59 (Fed. Cir. 2014); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Note that in the instant case, the claims are not similar to DDR Holdings. In the case of DDR Holdings, the claim addresses the problem of retaining Web site visitors from being diverted from a host’s web site to an advertiser’s Web site, for which “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network". Here, however, the instant claim is directed to abstract idea of receiving health and fitness information for entities; store the health and fitness information for the entities; and sending a non-fungible token to an entity of the entities in response to a subset of the health and fitness information associated with the entity satisfying a criterion.
Regarding McRo, the claims in the instant case are not in any way similar to McRo as the claims do not make any technological improvement to any algorithm in performing improvement to animation techniques. Clearly this is simply a gratuitous citation to a case that was held as eligible when the facts clearly argue against any kind of McRo improvement. The claims in the instant case are clearly directed to a data management process of storing fitness data for entities which is an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues, regarding independent claims 1, 13, and 20, as currently amended, that the claims have been oversimplified, reducing the claims to a high-level abstraction untethered from the recited technology. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 ("The court must not oversimplify the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements."); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims 1, 13, and 20, as currently amended, recite the use of a blockchain to store fitness information and sending a NFT to an entity in response to the fitness information satisfying a criterion. The blockchain is recited at a high level of generality and is simply being used as a storage means with no details of the actual blockchain or any improvement thereof. The blockchain is simply being used as a tool to store information and perform the abstract idea and results in a general link to the use of a judicial exception in a particular technological environment. The claimed blockchain is being used much like any other type of database with no improvement thereof. The claims do not include any limitations directed to validating data through consensus or storing data across nodes, or any improvement to the functioning of a computer network. The claims also do not include any limitations specifically related to rule based logic triggered by dynamically changing physiological data. Claim 1 sends a NFT to an entity "in response to a subset of the health and fitness information associated with the entity satisfying a criterion", however, the broadest reasonable interpretation could include a criterion not related to "changing physiological data" such as awarding an NFT for simply providing a specific type of fitness information.
As above, the claims in the instant case are not similar to either McRo or Enfish.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20, as currently amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims 1-12 are directed to a system, claims 13-19 are directed to a method and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory machine readable storage medium.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application. Examples of abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. US Supreme directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Mon, 7 Jan 2019, Pg. 50 - 57).
In the instant case, Claims 1 - 12 are directed to a system, Claims 13 - 19 are directed to a method and Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Claim 1 recites data management, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite (in part) "receiving health and fitness information for entities; store the health and fitness information for the entities; and sending a non-fungible token to an entity of the entities in response to a subset of the health and fitness information associated with the entity satisfying a criterion", which is grouped within the "Certain methods of organizing human activity", specifically, "commercial or legal interactions...", grouping(s) of abstract ideas because the claims involve data management in prong one of Step 2A (see MPEP 2106). Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under similar reasoning.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as one or more "blockchain", "non-transitory memory comprising instructions" and "one or more hardware processors" merely serves as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular 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 (i.e., automate and/or implement) the act of data management. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit(s) on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B, the additional element amount to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The additional elements merely provide instructions to "apply it" using generic components [see Applicant's Specification 10434; 0439; 0440]. Viewed as a whole, the elements recited in the claims merely describe data management using computer technology. Considered separately and as an ordered combination, it does not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. Which, according to the MPEP, cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 5 - 12, 14 and 16 - 19 further describe the abstract idea within the independent claims, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 3 and 15 further refine the abstract ides within the independent claim. For examine, "wherein the sending is responsive to self-execution of a smart Contract...", which is grouped within "Certain methods of organizing human activity...commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts..." because the claims involves the creation and execution of agreements used withing data management [see Applicant's Specification 10261; 0285; 0294]. Viewed individually and in combination, these additional steps do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 - 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LATORRE et al. (US 2020/0211409 A1), in view of DeRosa-Grund (US 2022/0270725).
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 20 –
LATORRE discloses a non-transitory memory comprising instructions (par 121); and
one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read the instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising (par 71; 121):
receiving health and fitness information for entities (par 72 "unify and certify data and identifiers, in a universal manner in one or more territories, of individuals such as users, trainers and health professionals entities such as public administrations, health centers, training centers, insurers, among others; products and services, such as health and training services and programs, medical and/or veterinary procedures for improving health or user monitoring, health training courses for self- care, experimental programs in patient devices used with/by the individual, medications prescribed/used by the individual . . .”; 96; 99 "provide to authorized personnel health data, training data such as physical activity data, sleep cycle records, regular locations and/or and routes of the individual, related environmental information (pollution levels, pollen levels . . .), as well as other types of information . . ."; 100; 116);
employing a blockchain network to store the health and fitness information for the entities (par 41; 46; 48 "The identifiers and other required data are stored and certified as a digital record in cloud system(s) and in one or more distributed ledger technologies or blockchains to which individuals, entities and different systems can access"; 73; 77);
sending a non-fungible token to an entity of the entities in response to satisfying a criterion (par 66 "In a preferred embodiment of the invention, a user, professional, service and/ or organization can receive recognitions and/or rewards (diploma, real or virtual award, virtual currency or digital money, fungible or non-fungible tokens) after reaching some goal (training or qualification acquired, services performed, degree of quality achieved, ). Additionally, the recognitions and/or rewards obtained can be used to achieve new objectives (to carry out new training/programs, enable access to higher level, etc.)."; 73; 97; 0107); recognitions and/or rewards ( diploma, real or virtual award, virtual currency or digital money, fungible or non-fungible tokens ) after reaching some goal (training or qualification acquired, services performed, degree of quality achieved).
DeRosa-Grund discloses, as LATORRE does not specifically disclose, and in a similar field of endeavor, a blockchain network comprising a plurality of validating nodes configured to execute a consensus protocol, to store the health and fitness information for the entities, wherein storing comprises forming a transaction including the health and fitness information, broadcasting the transaction to the validating nodes, validating the transaction via the consensus protocol, and recording the validated transaction in an immutable block appended to a distributed ledger maintained across the plurality of validating nodes (par 52, also 111, 117-118, 185);
sending, in response to execution of a smart contract encoded on the blockchain network that automatically evaluates dynamically changing physiological metrics included in the health and fitness information, a nonfungible token to an entity of the entities based on determining, via the smart contract, that a rule-based fitness achievement criterion applied to the recorded health and fitness information is satisfied, wherein the non-fungible token is minted or transferred as part of a blockchain transaction that is validated and recorded via the consensus protocol. (par 96, also 52, 111).
It would be obvious to combine LATORRE with DeRosa-Grund in order to enable the secure effectuation, recordation and sharing of one or more transactions including electronic health record non-fungible tokens, and/or cybersecured storage of data in an automated, real-time, zero-trust, globally data law and privacy law centric manner while maintaining transaction party confidentiality and preventing chain poisoning. (DeRosa-Grund, abs)
Regarding claims 2 and 14 –
LATORRE discloses wherein the sending comprises sending the non-fungible token to an address on the blockchain network associated with the entity (par 66; 78; 97)
Regarding claims 3 and 15 –
LATORRE discloses wherein the sending is responsive to self-execution of a smart contract as a function of the subset of the health and fitness information becoming stored on the blockchain network, and wherein the smart contract is encoded on the blockchain network. (par 57; 115)
Regarding claims 4 and 16 –
LATORRE discloses wherein the non-fungible token corresponds to an item selected from the group consisting of: a digital collectible, a digital badge, a digital coupon and a digital avatar item or accessory. (par 66; 73; 97)
Regarding claim 5 –
LATORRE discloses wherein the non-fungible token corresponds to a digital access pass to a real-world event or environment. (par 66; 117)
Regarding claim7 –
LATORRE discloses wherein the health and fitness information relates to performance of one or more fitness activities (par 41; 46; 72; 97; 99; 100; 116).
Regarding claim 8 –
LATORRE discloses wherein the health and fitness information comprises physical fitness performance metrics (par 41; 46; 72; 97; 99; 100; 116)
Regarding claim 9 –
LATORRE discloses wherein the receiving comprises receiving the health and fitness information from one or more authorized data sources, and wherein the employing comprises storing the health and fitness information on the blockchain network in response to the receiving (par 46; 48]. Claim 17 recites similar language and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 10 –
LATORRE discloses linking respective portions of the health and fitness information corresponding to respective entities of the entities with respective addresses of the entities of the blockchain network (par 73; 107; 112). Claim 17 recites similar language and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claims 6, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LATORRE et al (US 2020/0211409 A1), in view of DeRosa-Grund (US 2022/0270725) and further in view of YANTIS et al (US 2021/0248594 A1).
LATORRE in view of DeRosa-Grund discloses as above.
Regarding claim 6 –
YANTIS teaches wherein the non-fungible token corresponds to a digital access pass to a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment (par 838; 847; 860; 993 " . . . .a virtual world presence system 114 for representing tokenized physical world items within virtual world environments.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tokenization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the systems and methods as disclosed by YANTIS to facilitate limited access to items and/or products.
Regarding claims 11 and 18 –
YANTIS discloses generating a digital avatar for an entity of the entities based on image data captured of the entity (par 881; 933); and
minting a second non-fungible token for the digital avatar and the entity on the blockchain network (par 134; 135; 149).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tokenization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the systems and methods as disclosed by YANTIS to facilitate verifiable digital identities within an environment.
Regarding claims 12 and 19 –
YANTIS discloses controlling usage of the digital avatar by a user identity in association with usage of the digital avatar in one or more virtual reality, augmented reality, or extended reality environments based on verification that the user identity corresponds to the entity and verification that the second non-fungible token is owned by the entity via the blockchain network (par 905; 933).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tokenization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the systems and methods as disclosed by YANTIS to facilitate verifiable digital identities within an environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ashby et al (US 2025/0144472) discloses a method and system for verifying an activity metric and teaches issuing NFT awards based on health and fitness data such as number of steps taken or other exercise and physiological data.
Gilvert (US 2022/0246299) discloses a patient advisor and healthcare system for remote management of chronic conditions and teaches issuing NFT rewards for achieving improved outcomes in health related information.
Choura (US 2024/0029014) discloses issuing NFT based rewards based on health related data and user health related activities.
Nova et al (US 2023/0245764) discloses a healthcare data exchange system and teaches issuing NFT rewards to users based on health data.
Sliwka (US 2024/0428306) discloses systems for issuing NFT reward tokens for health related data.
Dersham (US 2024/0013169) discloses a system for issuing NFTs as rewards for health related reasons.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTINA OWEN SHERR whose telephone number is (571)272-6711. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/Cristina Owen Sherr/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights